A
Aloysium
Guest
Please explain what is an animate object. Is a clock and animate object? What would you consider the difference between a bacterium and a clock?
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
E
Edgar
Guest
You’re comparing a snowflake to a living organism?
Even a snowflake is evidence of design. How does the same chemical process keep producing beautiful patterns that are never repeated?
A
Aloysium
Guest
This in contrast with what is believed by the intelligenzia of western society, which sacrifices its unborn to transient and illusory goods, justified by the implications of evolutionary theory. Imagine those poor ignorant peasants. This attitude, by the way, would be of little help in resolving these issues.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
The hard scientist examines the data and hypothesizes an explanatory formula. He assigns each independent variable (causes) a coefficient and an exponent that explains the dependent variable (effect).
However, the scientist’s mathematical expression of cause to effect may not exactly fit the observed data. If the errors are small, the scientist may safely assign the variance to (random) stochastic errors.
But the evolutionist has no mathematical formulae that either explains or predicts specie variation. Their claims are speculative no matter how they try to elevate what is merely speculative to be factual. To wit:
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Another evo claim bites the dust. (If one searches past Buffalo posts of 10 years ago you will see the nylonase claim already being refuted - now the nail in the coffin)
Nylonase Genes and Proteins – Distribution, Conservation, and Possible Origins.
It has long been thought that nylonase genes and proteins were essentially absent from the biosphere prior to 1935. This belief led to the widespread assumption that any nylonase gene observed in the
present must have emerged since 1935. Several authors developed hypothetical models of how a specific nylonase gene (the nylB gene found within Arthrobacter KI72), might have arisen very recently as a de novo gene.
In this paper we show that the widely-held assumption that all nylonase genes must have evolved very recently is no longer credible. This is in light of the wide-spread distribution of diverse nylonases throughout the biosphere. Likewise, we show that the early speculations regarding the possible de novo origin of the nylB nylonase gene are no longer credible.
Nylonase Genes and Proteins – Distribution, Conservation, and Possible Origins.
It has long been thought that nylonase genes and proteins were essentially absent from the biosphere prior to 1935. This belief led to the widespread assumption that any nylonase gene observed in the
present must have emerged since 1935. Several authors developed hypothetical models of how a specific nylonase gene (the nylB gene found within Arthrobacter KI72), might have arisen very recently as a de novo gene.
In this paper we show that the widely-held assumption that all nylonase genes must have evolved very recently is no longer credible. This is in light of the wide-spread distribution of diverse nylonases throughout the biosphere. Likewise, we show that the early speculations regarding the possible de novo origin of the nylB nylonase gene are no longer credible.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
In the evolutionist cult, no difference exists between the merely speculative and a scientific theory. Their playbook elevates the speculative to science theory and the rest willfully drink their own Kool-Aid. From the article:
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I think it’s already been explained to you that you cannot predict changes in a species. But you might be accused of giving the impression that maths and statistics have no part in confirming the evolutionary process.Aloysium:
The hard scientist examines the data and hypothesizes an explanatory formula. He assigns each independent variable (causes) a coefficient and an exponent that explains the dependent variable (effect).
However, the scientist’s mathematical expression of cause to effect may not exactly fit the observed data. If the errors are small, the scientist may safely assign the variance to (random) stochastic errors.
But the evolutionist has no mathematical formulae that either explains or predicts specie variation.
statistical approach to tests involving phylogenies - Stanford Statistics
PDFhttps://statweb.stanford.edu › chapihp04
The above link is one of hundreds that will help clear up any misunderstanding on that matter.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I have not spoken at all about predicting changes in a species. And actually do see it happening, so I’m not sure what you are talking about.
What the data does confirm is that speciation is driven by gene deletion. The transfer of pre-existing genes also plays a role.
If by evolution you mean the appearance of increasingly complex organisms over time as a result of purely chemical processes, culled by the ability of the phenotypes’ capacity to survive to procreation, I would most definitely appreciate any data specific to that point.
Now, if you can provide a link that works, I will try to present my impressions, to relate them to what I am actually trying to communicate.
What the data does confirm is that speciation is driven by gene deletion. The transfer of pre-existing genes also plays a role.
If by evolution you mean the appearance of increasingly complex organisms over time as a result of purely chemical processes, culled by the ability of the phenotypes’ capacity to survive to procreation, I would most definitely appreciate any data specific to that point.
Now, if you can provide a link that works, I will try to present my impressions, to relate them to what I am actually trying to communicate.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
I know that I cannot. The point is that neither can you.
Those who make such a false accusation would necessarily lack any meaningful understanding of mathematics and probability. So I would dismiss them.
The link does not work.
B
buffalo
Guest
Right, evolution is not empirical science in that it is not observable, repeatable, and predictable.
W
Wozza
Guest
This next paragraph must be empirically scientific:Wozza:
Right, evolution is not empirical science in that it is not observable, repeatable, and predictable.
I observe you making uneducated comments regarding evolution all the time. And you keep repeating the same mistakes. I predict that this will continue.
A
Aloysium
Guest
What’s your operational definition of uneducated? How would one other than yourself be able to identify it? Is it a binary yes-no observation or are there measurable gradations. How would you differentiate between comments that are other than uneducated, for example misunderstandings or reflecting an alternate opinion. Your view of empirical science might be labelled as uneducated.
B
buffalo
Guest
The usual comment without substance.
O
o_mlly
Guest
As usual, the depth of this analyst indicates he would drown in a bird-bath.
Drink up.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
W
Wozza
Guest
Just four lines? Yeah, I can spend the time reading that.
Uneducated means just that. A comment made that would indicate that the person who made it is lacking in a basic education in the subject at hand. The term ‘ignorant’ would also be applicable but tends to have negative connutations so I try to avoid it.
Evolution is obviously observable. What do you think Darwin was doing for all those years before he wrote his book? It’s obviously repeatable, notwithstanding ignorant (whoops…uneducated) comments such as ‘bacteria are still bacteria’. And one can make predictions. It does seem to be willful ignorance in this case as all you would need to do is Google ‘Does evolution make predictions’.
If someone says: ‘I understand the theory but for reasons X, Y and Z do not accept it’, then they are arguing from an educated viewpoint. Unfortuately for Catholics, we have quite a few people making comments in threads like this which are argued from a position of ignorance (whoops…lack of education).
It’s fairly difficult to excuse that these days because we all have access to a substantial amount of peer reviewed information. But there you go. It seems some cannot hold two ideas in their head at the same time. They insist it’s not possible. When even atheists like myself say it’s perfectly acceptable.
But too long an answer. Heaven forbid I should encourage you to reply in kind.
E
Edgar
Guest
I reckon someone should compile a book with an explanation of what words mean. It could start with words that begin with A and go all the way thru to words that begin with Z.
What does “google it” mean? Perhaps you meant “goggles” - it which case, no, I don’t need glasses to read.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
I agree … except that “animate objects” would seem to be an oxymoron.
E
Edgar
Guest
Have you considered the possibility that a theory can make predictions but still be wrong?
Is a theory still valid if its most fundamental prediction is contradicted by the evidence? The gradualism Darwins predicted appears to be contradicted by the fossil record. Puncutated Equilibrium attempts to explain this contradiction (which Gould desribed as an “embarrassment”), but PE is speculative and can’t be tested (gee, how unusual for an evolutionary theory!) so we’re left with the fact and the most fundamental prediction of Darwin’s theory fails.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
How come your profile says you’re religion is “Anglican”?
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
Theories can be wrong? Why wasn’t I told? Talk about cats and pigeons.Wozza:
Have you considered the possibility that a theory can make predictions but still be wrong?
Is a theory still valid if its most fundamental prediction is contradicted by the evidence? The gradualism Darwins predicted appears to be contradicted by the fossil record. Puncutated Equilibrium attempts to explain this contradiction (which Gould desribed as an “embarrassment”), but PE is speculative and can’t be tested (gee, how unusual for an evolutionary theory!) so we’re left with the fact and the most fundamental prediction of Darwin’s theory fails.
Look, you might not have noticed. But things have moved on from the middle of the 19th century. So what Darwin proposed has been developed, fine-tuned, adjusted and revised. Maybe you didn’t realise that theories are not static. Almost by definition they need to change as more information is brought to light.
So if anyone takes anything from ‘On The Origin Of Species…’ as being the last word on the subject then they are going to look silly. And if anyone thinks that something like PE contradicts the process of evolution (as opposed to clarifying one aspect of it) then they are also going to look silly.
It never ceases to amaze me that the people who post the most on this subject never fail to show that they know the least.
And I’m a lapsed Anglican. I felt it worthwhile that people know that I come from a solid Christian background.
- Status