B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - “The evidence is there en masse, but one has to actually open their eyes and minds in order to see it.” (for intelligent design)
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
You know why they are called the Dark Ages?
M
Metis1
Guest
It’s pretty pathetic that one completely accepts without questioning that which they cannot see but rejects that which they can see if they at least try and look at the evidence objectively.
For me, I accept God on the basis of belief and the ToE on the basis of overwhelming evidence that we in science have.
For me, I accept God on the basis of belief and the ToE on the basis of overwhelming evidence that we in science have.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Too general surviving what, exactly?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
Lol… you’re moving the goalpost
E
edwest
Guest
The theory of evolution has no scientific application, including new drug discovery.
B
buffalo
Guest
You choose to ignore the obvious and oft cited evidence for design.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
For logical people, Buff, we all understand the natural constraints of repeatability when discussing processes that lake longer than a human life.Metis1:
No, it is not. There is no observable, repeatable and predictable evidence. I have asked for it over and over and no one has ever produced any. This is fantasy. You really need to drop this line.
We can’t reinvent quasars or galaxy formation in the lab, so per your metric they must not exist. Obviously so you see the issue, there.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Sure. The collapse of larger civilization and the subsequent loss of information.Metis1:
You know why they are called the Dark Ages?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s funny you say that.
Probably the greatest modern application of the ToE is in realizing how pliable our genes actually are and devising drugs and other treatments (like, say, for cancer) that takes advantage of this fact.
That’s kinda where the pharmacological “cutting edge” is, really.
Additionally, its opened doors to possibly editing our embryos in the future to curtail genetic maladies. Imagine being able to have a son, but without the down syndrome initially expressed in his genes.
That we can and do change at the genetic level makes all this possible.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
No, incredulity means that you are unwilling or unable to accept something. An argument cannot be incredulous.Bradskii:
The natural selection arguments I read here are magnitudes higher in incredulity.
E
edwest
Guest
B
Bradskii
Guest
That’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Google is your friend.
Who is the president of the US? In your personal opinion…
When you have time, you can tell us to what secular use one can put ID.
This is lots of fun…
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
That term means that I am changing the focus of the argument. If you read what I said, I am actually contradicting the argument.Bradskii:
Lol… you’re moving the goalpost
LOL.
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
I don’t know where you are getting your information. Drug discovery is still trial and error. Hundreds of tubes containing infected tissue are placed in racks and some drug combination is injected into each one. These tubes are then examined to see if any of these drugs do anything. If there is a positive response, a few may go on to animal trials. If the animals don’t die or suffer serious side effects, human trials start. If that goes well, you may see TV commercials for new drugs that always end with serious risks for some percentage of users. My favorites are: liver failure, kidney failure, heart failure and death. Death is sometimes described as “a sudden fatal reaction.”
Gene editing has nothing to do with evolution. CRISPER/Cas 9 was designed by human beings. The original CRISPR was the hammer and chisel approach. It was damaging neighboring genes. The latest version is still encountering various problems related to what scientists don’t know. The other problem is speed. The original CRISPR was slow, the latest version is faster but it’s regarded as not fast enough. Scientists are working on some ways to increase speed but the journals are reporting the same trial and error approach.
Gene editing has nothing to do with evolution. CRISPER/Cas 9 was designed by human beings. The original CRISPR was the hammer and chisel approach. It was damaging neighboring genes. The latest version is still encountering various problems related to what scientists don’t know. The other problem is speed. The original CRISPR was slow, the latest version is faster but it’s regarded as not fast enough. Scientists are working on some ways to increase speed but the journals are reporting the same trial and error approach.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Well, some can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
And a brief list to be getting on with (I don’t want to flood the thread with every example - it would take up too much room.
- Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
- Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
- Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
- Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
- Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Last edited:
E
edwest
Guest
Nice try. No cigar. Studying what can be observed is observation, as opposed to very, very gradual changes over millions of years. What cannot be explained is how the allegedly slowly modified organism can still survive in a dynamic environment that changes over millions of years.
Artificial fisheries are man-made. Observation of what is actually happening is real-time observation.
Evolutionary theory is useless when bacteria and viruses have built-in mechanisms to deal with outside threats like chemicals/drugs. No prediction is possible. A protein coat change means you now have two or more strains of the same virus. These viruses have the built-in ability to combine, creating yet another strain.
Bioinformatics does not need anything from evolutionary theory. Genetic knock-out experiments involve observation of the effect of knocking out this or that gene and putting those observations into a database.
Cross-breeding cannot occur when built-in mechanisms are incompatible.
Artificial fisheries are man-made. Observation of what is actually happening is real-time observation.
Evolutionary theory is useless when bacteria and viruses have built-in mechanisms to deal with outside threats like chemicals/drugs. No prediction is possible. A protein coat change means you now have two or more strains of the same virus. These viruses have the built-in ability to combine, creating yet another strain.
Bioinformatics does not need anything from evolutionary theory. Genetic knock-out experiments involve observation of the effect of knocking out this or that gene and putting those observations into a database.
Cross-breeding cannot occur when built-in mechanisms are incompatible.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
OK, fair enough. All these people in all these areas of industry that state unequivocably that they are using evolutionary theory to further their business are…lying? A random guy on the internet knows more than the people who actually use it.
Now what were the practical uses of ID?
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually, it is in design.
B
Bradskii
Guest
The proposal that life has been designed by a divine creator has practical scientific uses? Tell Ed. He’s trying to think of some.Vonsalza:
Actually, it is in design.
- Status