G
Glark
Guest
Nevertheless, I bet his dance moves were pretty impressive.
Last edited:
- Status
G
Glark
Guest
The scientific standards of evolution revolve around baseless assumptions, rank speculation and wild extrapolations. Oh, and a healthy dose of vivid imagination.
T
Techno2000
Guest
po18guy:
The scientific standards of evolution revolve around baseless assumptions, rank speculation and wild extrapolations. Oh, and a healthy dose of vivid imagination.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Disco seriously puts into question the idea of evolution in music.
Even Genesis was only middling’ back in the sixties and seventies, and got no better later on.
C
ChunkMonk
Guest
See how this works?
If you believe the Bible and agree with the vast majority of Catholic thinkers and theologians, Saints and Popes, then you are no longer a good Catholic.
Evolution has become dogma. And they claim it’s “science” and not religion.
R
rossum
Guest
So, in order to criticise evolution, you say it is “religion”, not “science”. I find it strange that a Christian would say that, in effect, science is superior to religion. You might want to think through the implications of your argument more carefully.
rossum
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Lewontin is a distinguished evolutionary biologist. To quote him as though he were otherwise is “a hoax”. Here’s another quote from him:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The puns betray the sort of misunderstanding of the science behind Darwinism. That disco was inferior to previous music would be part and parcel of the theory’s view that randomness and the ability to fit with the environment are sufficient to explain changes in Species. It does not address what science observes as a growing complexity in time, but tries to explain it away as simply a random event. In the case of disco, a greater tendency in society towards self-interest, pleasure and vanity would promote music that elicits a sensual as opposed to a spiritual response. This isn’t science; it’s common sense.
The fact is that there exists an obvious difference between ourselves and apes, not to mention the simplest one celled life forms and before that, simple molecules. That this occurred by chance over time, solely through the forces and qualities inherent in the atom, is a belief fitting of one response:
The fact is that there exists an obvious difference between ourselves and apes, not to mention the simplest one celled life forms and before that, simple molecules. That this occurred by chance over time, solely through the forces and qualities inherent in the atom, is a belief fitting of one response:
T
the_universal
Guest
Mutations are random, evolution is guided by natural selection (primarily) which is driven by the physical environment (e.g., climate, food resources etc).
A
Aloysium
Guest
You appear to be suggesting that the environment would not also be made up of random molecular activity. If randomness governs how nature works, then whole thing is random with the creature as an integral element in one whole that is the earth. Actually, there are no physically defined organisms or species separate from their environment. So, they either exist as somethng real in themselves, beyond mere chemical processes, or they are simply the products of our imagination. In either case, something other than chemicals clearly organizes living creatures. We can marvel at what organizes this reality in which we are participating in the moment, discussing these matters, as random as some would have it.
You might want to think more about natural selection, specifically in terms of how it works. It would be important to investigate what happens at a chemical level, but also psychologically, since it is clear in birds and mammals, that these are key factors involved in mate selection. It would be important to understand what is mind, how it fits into natural selection, and how it would have evolved, if you are going to promote Darwinism.
You might want to think more about natural selection, specifically in terms of how it works. It would be important to investigate what happens at a chemical level, but also psychologically, since it is clear in birds and mammals, that these are key factors involved in mate selection. It would be important to understand what is mind, how it fits into natural selection, and how it would have evolved, if you are going to promote Darwinism.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Where was all these food resources for the first mutating cell to be driven by?
Last edited:
T
the_universal
Guest
I would assume there was an intake of energy of some sort?
T
the_universal
Guest
Nope. I believe that organisms evolve, but I do not pretend to know how life began. I am open to the concept of Divine intervention of life.
T
Techno2000
Guest
The first cell came to life from chemicals . It could also eat those same chemicals that created it. As time went on it saw that sunlight was good to eat too, so it evolved to eat that.After awhile it grew tired of sunlight and wanted something new to eat ,but there was nothing but… it…chemicals… and…sunlight.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Well, we all eat chemicals, you know.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
A correct suggestion; chemistry is definitely not random. If chemistry were random then there would be as much H2O as HO2 in the universe. There is not, there is vastly more H2O.
The material universe is not random, though it does contain some random components.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
We agree it is fine-tuned? or you are not ready to go there yet…
B
buffalo
Guest
Just how difficult is the Origin of Life problem?
In this video James Tours describes his work with nanocars and the difficulty of solving the Origin of Life problem.
Time is enemy as products of reactions degrade
Dream team could not develop a cell
Nobody understands
When will science community confess they have no clue
Abiogenesis nightmare
“Some may contend that I did not use Nature’s building blocks, such as carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids. I concede, I took the easy route and used simple synthetic molecules, not Nature’s far more complex compounds where chirality and diastereoselectivity can be enormously problematic in synthesis. Thus here we will consider Nature’s building blocks, showing that many of the common parameters hold, yet they become far more difficult for prebiotic systems than for the synthetic chemist today.”
In this video James Tours describes his work with nanocars and the difficulty of solving the Origin of Life problem.
Time is enemy as products of reactions degrade
Dream team could not develop a cell
Nobody understands
When will science community confess they have no clue
Abiogenesis nightmare
“Some may contend that I did not use Nature’s building blocks, such as carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids and lipids. I concede, I took the easy route and used simple synthetic molecules, not Nature’s far more complex compounds where chirality and diastereoselectivity can be enormously problematic in synthesis. Thus here we will consider Nature’s building blocks, showing that many of the common parameters hold, yet they become far more difficult for prebiotic systems than for the synthetic chemist today.”
B
buffalo
Guest
NS is a conservative process not a creative one.
T
Techno2000
Guest
We eat carbohydrates, protein and fats where was all this in the beginning of Darwin’s barren earth ?
- Status