Would evolution have occurred if life came to the earth from another planet? If some chemical reaction created the first life? If God said “let there be life”? If not, why not? If so, your statement is false.
Those are two separate problems, and just because you wish to connect them they will not connect.
Hi,
Hitetlen said:
Right. It is an axiom, a guiding principle whereby we investigate processes to see to what degree we may predict outcomes of experiments. We may or may not be ultimately successful in explaining a given process to an arbitrary (or achievable) level of precision.
I don’t suppose you have any sort of numbers to back up this wildly strong assertion.
Are the experiments alluded to below “science”?
"The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs."
You are absolutely correct, but I wanted to illustrate that even without the self-organizing process of biology something that is very “improbable” will happen if the experiment is conducted sufficiently numerous times. It was just an illustration, not an analogy.
Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
What is “lower-case ‘intelligent design’”?
That is absurd. No offense. Chane within a species and change form one species to another are completely different things. Talk about oversimplifying things. A son being taller than his father and a squirrel becoming a bird are two very different concepts. One is observable. The other is not. So I will have to say my claim of hooey is much stronger than yours.They most certainly do not!
And as I’m fond of saying, that micro/macro distinction is a bunch of hooey. Once you concede that things can evolve then your stuck with it. You can’t just be a little bit evolved.
Exactly!Why would scientists propose an idea if there is no way to test it or prove it wrong?It would be worthless.
I said two different rocks. One with scratches. One with drawings.
So you mean we know how to recongnize design?
Change within a species is micro-evolution (mutation). Change from one species to an entirely different one is macro-evolution. They are two different things and it would not be scientific or even precise to blur the two. It is like saying toothpaste and a dentists chair are the same thing.
Well, there you go. Let’s all oppose Catholic schools since Hitler and Stalin used them to justify genocide.
they also both encountered Christianity as children…your point?
What is the difference between micro and macro?
To be fair both specifically rejected Christianity and specifically cited Evolution in support of their attrocities.
I don’t understand. Right above your post is recent and ongoing observational evidence for one species branching out into several new species. This is observed speciation. This is what you and other non-specialists call “macro” evolution. What’s the problem?
But the distinction is there! And it is the scientific distinction. Having a crooked toe that your grandmother had is mutation within a species and it is an observable fact. Leaping from one species to another is non observable and has never been proven to have happened and in fact the more time goes by the less likely it is to be proven. They are two different things by definition. Steve, you are now not even arguing from an informed evolutionary perspective. You are trying to make two different things the same thing when they are not.
I wouldn’t be so smug. Are you sure you really understand evolutionary theory? It sounds to me like you think scientists believe one species can “leap” into another, genetically. Do you know that no scientist believes this? You are arguing against a theory that doesn’t exist? Species all had common ancestors. We don’t believe that present birds can evolve into present reptiles, or squirrels can evolve into fish. They simply (genetically) diverged at some point in the past. This divergence (speciation) is what is observed today, like in the instances I posted above. This is evolutionary theory. It does no good to rail against something you misrepresent.
You are reading too much into what I wrote. And there was nothing smug about it. It is common knowledge. And you are not telling me anything I have not heard before. There was nothing misrepresented since it is you who suggested specifics that I did not. In fact the one I did mention is quite common in evolutionary theory.
No smugness in that reply. Is it possible that there are a few scientists on these forums that might, just might, have a clue about science?
