B
Bradskii
Guest
Oh dear. That ranks up there with ‘so how come there are still monkeys!’ewohdrol:
Indeed, categories… Still bacteria and not changing gradually into something much greater with new and novel features.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Give me your favorite.
B
buffalo
Guest
What are monkeys evolving into?
E
edwest211
Guest
Exactly right. Researchers working in Canada found resistant strains of bacteria in dirt, including some that were resistant to man-made antibiotics.
E
edwest211
Guest
Bacteria are a different form of life. Animals cannot exchange bits of genetic information to counter a toxic threat.
E
edwest211
Guest
Materialism and utilitarianism is all science can provide. With an important key to the puzzle missing, further research in bioinformatics is taking the genome apart like a device. There is no evolution guide book. Just like in drug discovery, trial and error or the odds are the only tools available.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I don’t think he can do that. Apparently, the poster didn’t read the abstract before pasting it. The abstract ends, “All of these are key elements of what may become a predictive theory of evolution.”
There’s that pesky word again: “may.”
Who wants to buy the references at 10 bucks a pop to read more horoscopes?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You ask this question as if it somehow refutes evolution. If you actually tried to spell out your argument based on this question you would see how it is not really any argument at all. Of course the answer to your question is “maybe something different” and “maybe they will stay monkeys for a long long time.” What does any of that have to do with refuting evolution? Answer: nothing.Bradskii:
What are monkeys evolving into?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
For those of us who don’t know which paper or posting of a paper you mean, can you provide a link?buffalo:
I don’t think he can do that. Apparently, the poster didn’t read the abstract before pasting it. The abstract ends, “All of these are key elements of what may become a predictive theory of evolution.”
There’s that pesky word again: “may.”
Who wants to buy the references at 10 bucks a pop to read more horoscopes?
A
Aloysium
Guest
This is what I was referring to when I spoke about your strong faith. It comes across as what sounds like a total acceptance of authority in this area; there is no sign of any healthy skepticism as it applies to any aspect of evolutionary theory Being open to alternate ways of seeing things is an attitude that is actually scientific and reflective of an open mind.
I’m sure creationism will win out over evolution, although the scientific version might lack the Christian symbolism, finding other words for such concepts as the soul.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is healthy skepticism and there is unhealthy skepticism, such as when people suspect that when health professionals say we should have vaccinations that they might actually be distributing a secret sterility agent. This is exactly why polio has not yet been eradicated like smallpox. Islamic extremists are spreading rumors in Afghanistan , Pakistan and Nigeria, the last three countries on earth to have endemic polio, that the polio vaccine is really a nefarious Western plot to sterilize Muslims.LeafByNiggle:
This is what I was referring to when I spoke about your strong faith. It comes across as what sounds like a total acceptance of authority in this area; there is no sign of any healthy skepticism as it applies to any aspect of evolutionary theory…
I do have an open mind on these issue. But every argument I’ve seen from anti-evolution has been so patently unscientific that it does not deserve any more consideration than I have given it.
You are “sure?” Boy, talk about strong faith in place of scientific reason.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Hands up everyone who thinks that predictions made using the ToE means that they constitute a ‘Predictive Theory of Evolution’. Anyone?buffalo:
I don’t think he can do that. Apparently, the poster didn’t read the abstract before pasting it. The abstract ends, “All of these are key elements of what may become a predictive theory of evolution.” Predicting evolution | Nature Ecology & Evolution
There’s that pesky word again: “may.”
Who wants to buy the references at 10 bucks a pop to read more horoscopes?
OK. Y’all go stand over there. I’ll organise extra classes in basic scientific terminology in due course and your attendence will be compulsory. In the meantime here’s another prediction: If you don’t understand basic scientific concepts, then you will look foolish trying to comment on them.
“The face of evolutionary biology is changing: from reconstructing and analysing the past to predicting future evolutionary processes. Recent developments include prediction of reproducible patterns in parallel evolution experiments, forecasting the future of individual populations using data from their past, and controlled manipulation of evolutionary dynamics. Here we undertake a synthesis of central concepts for evolutionary predictions, based on examples of microbial and viral systems, cancer cell populations, and immune receptor repertoires. These systems have strikingly similar evolutionary dynamics driven by the competition of clades within a population. These dynamics are the basis for models that predict the evolution of clade frequencies, as well as broad genetic and phenotypic changes. Moreover, there are strong links between prediction and control, which are important for interventions such as vaccine or therapy design. All of these are key elements of what may become a predictive theory of evolution.”
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
We don’t know. There is no ‘Predictive Theory of Evolution’.Bradskii:
What are monkeys evolving into?
Why is this so hard a topic for some people? It’s third or fourth grade material.
T
Techno2000
Guest
What is anything evolving into ?buffalo:
You ask this question as if it somehow refutes evolution. If you actually tried to spell out your argument based on this question you would see how it is not really any argument at all. Of course the answer to your question is “maybe something different” and “maybe they will stay monkeys for a long long time.” What does any of that have to do with refuting evolution? Answer: nothing.Bradskii:
What are monkeys evolving into?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
OK, I’m done answering questions unless the questioner states how that question furthers his or her argument.LeafByNiggle:
What is anything evolving into ?buffalo:
You ask this question as if it somehow refutes evolution. If you actually tried to spell out your argument based on this question you would see how it is not really any argument at all. Of course the answer to your question is “maybe something different” and “maybe they will stay monkeys for a long long time.” What does any of that have to do with refuting evolution? Answer: nothing.Bradskii:
What are monkeys evolving into?
H
Happymom
Guest
New species are created not because there is no God but because there is.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Look, if we all took that course, Techno would be talking to himself, poor chap.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Apparently, to be an evolutionist one must have a “BS” degree but the “B” does not stand for “bachelor” and the “S” most certainly does not stand for “science.”
Here’s an example of the bs that surrounds evolutionary claims.
Self-contradictory. Either “nothing was known” or Terry Vaughn: 1) experienced the miracle of infused knowledge or 2) traveled back in time. Take your pick.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Oh, this just gets better and better. I had heard about the Australian rite of passage called the “walkabout” but not so much about the Australian “walkback.”
The first reference in this citation is “Gould, S. J. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (1989).”
Did you bother to read some reviews of Gould’s work? Apparently not. Here’s one.
Wonderful Life (book) - Wikipedia
Gee, kinda says the opposite of what you wanted, doesn’t it?
A
Aloysium
Guest
It is a faith in science, or rather in humanity, that we will pursue the truth, and knowledge of where the data is going, that I can reasonably say that many of the ideas associated with creation, as the most comprehensive explanation for not only ourselves, but for all the diversity in nature, will supplant those of evolution.
As I said, it need not follow the teachings of the church. Many if not most biologist are naturalists, holding as a central belief that of emergence, which asserts that the parts can bring about a greater whole. This is used as an “explanation” for consciousness, which is said to arise from neuronal activity. On a more material level, where it actually makes some sense, we find that it is the shape of proteins, and not the order of amino acids themselves, it’s the configuration that they take as a result of the electrostatic forces that interact, that is what determines their properties, such as whether they will come together as a structure or operate as enzymes. As science continues to open up and clarify the role of genetic and epigenetic factors, it is more and more apparent that there is more to the change in universal order that saw our emergence from a singularity, than randomness. Pantheism may be more palatable to those who follow a will to power, where looking solely after one’s own interests means compliance with the dictates at the foundations of a nature, which designed us and presses all life to survive and assert itself. That course in truth, spells disaster.
Last edited:
- Status