aguywhoplaysthief on 12/3/2006 at 06:59
...it must be Jesus walking on the water.
Tocky on 12/3/2006 at 07:02
I think I understand what Convict is doing. He is forcing us to prove that because a hammer can drive a nail it can also smash a thumb. The truth is we don't know that for certain until we miss the nail but we can theorize the result based on the available knowledge of softness of thumb and hardness of hammer. That is really all evolutionary theory is.
We have the knowledge of chemical compositions in rock and lack of naturally occuring oxygen and things like lack of early oxidation to sudden (geologically speaking) oxidation to give us original atmosphere to plant dominated before animal but none of us were here to prove it. We know that the atmosphere changed and the rise of animals from simple to complex fits perfectly with geological strata but none of us witnessed it. There is such a wide array of knowledge from so many different fields that it sets the parameters of the missing puzzle pieces such that the piece shaped like a square we fill in with a square but it could be two triangles. But the thing is, we know that too because we can extrapolate data and none of it fits a kerpow there you go ready made Eden. Evolution fits. We keep finding more ways it does all the time.
I don't recall all the evidence but I've heard enough of it to know that if we don't keep following this particular trail even with it's false leads then we are heading toward an age where everything is an unexplainable miracle because we wont know shit.
Or you may just want all the evidence. In which case all I can say is so do I. So does every branch of science, praise be.
Agent Monkeysee on 12/3/2006 at 07:10
jesus god make it stop this is horrible
aguywhoplaysthief on 12/3/2006 at 07:19
I don't know, what Tocky said seems sensible to me.
Tocky on 12/3/2006 at 07:41
Damn. I really was shooting for horrible.
RyushiBlade on 12/3/2006 at 07:45
To sum up what Tocky said:
The commies did it.
jay pettitt on 12/3/2006 at 10:23
Quote Posted by Convict
I was merely quoting an example given above - it could be replaced with the question "Under artificial selection why can't fruit flies regress to e.g. a
crustacean (given enough time and the correctness of evolution)?
No particular reason. There's genetic material to do it either in whole or in part - though it's rediculously more difficult to arrive at a specified outcome than it is to do small random mutations. It's a bit like the deck of cards thing. You can shuffle a deck of cards and say huzzah!! - look at this amazing new order of cards I made. But you're going to have a hard time shuffling them back into pack and incremental numeric order again. Technically it ought to be possible to engineer, but it's not really feasible. Especially if you're starting position is a random assortment of different packs of cards.
Regarding specific data to dissprove darwinian evolution - Darwin theorises that Populations and Species originate from natural processes of evolution and selection. If you can show (by way of emperical observation or test) that any of:
* Species and Populations don't originate.
* Species and Populations don't evolve.
* Natural selection doesn't happen.
* a. doesn't arrive from b. via c.
...then you'll have single handidly trumped 150 years of scientific endeavour.
Once again, falsifiable isn't the same thing as false. Gravity is falsifiable - you just need to find an apple that, when dropped under normal gravity friendly conditions unexpectedly falls upwards. Just as you could nip off and find a static fossil record or emperical evidence of supernatural design.
Uncia on 12/3/2006 at 10:38
See, I don't believe that languages evolve, I think they just appeared fully formed. And I won't believe you until you can isolate a village in Greece and show me how everyone starts talking ancient Greek.
littlek on 12/3/2006 at 12:13
No one wants you to suddenly believe in evolution but to logically argue against it, you must understand it. Maybe if you understand one simple point, you may understand why the idea of evolution even exists. The only link between one generation and the next is DNA. Darwin understood this even though he was unaware of the existence of DNA. But he knew about sex and it is easily observed that traits were passed on from parents to offspring. Darwin was a creationist but what he observed led him to conclude that within a population exists variation and if that population is stressed, those with traits that give that population an advantage over others survive to reproduce and pass those advantageous traits on to their offspring. But the key is that the change has to be inherited.
There are so many examples in nature that support this; the desert pupfish, Kaibab squirrel, even the evolution of the horse is well documented in the fossil record. So you do not need the fossil record to prove line decent. You see it in homologous structures and chemcial similarities between species as well. Why is insulin from sheep biologically active in humans? Because the DNA that codes it in sheep has the same nitrogen base sequence found in humans. This implies common ancestry. Which is why men have sex with sheep.
Tintin on 12/3/2006 at 12:44
Oh no, you can't present two options to teach in school! We must brainwash the students with Evolution! Can't let there actually be a choice between Evolution and Intelligent Design!:rolleyes: Isn't science all about evaluating all options and from that identifying what is fact and what is theory?
Otherwise its just indoctrinating the students to the Evolution mindset. Sure you may not believe in Intelligent Design, but at least presenting both ideas lets students choose for themselves.:thumb:
