Peter is being belligerent in quite a frightening way …
I don’t discredit the theory at all.
I’m simply saying, it’s not a fact.
It’s not very controversial to say that.
I guess you must have a very low intimidation threshold. He looks mostly frustrated to me - and if my ancient faculties can be trusted, he wasn’t the first one to start calling names.
BTAIM…
Huh. Didn’t succeed, obviously. Sure made a good show of trying to.
Then why bother saying it, over and over?
And why offer such feeble counter-arguments?
He’s telling me that speciation is that offspring are slightly different. He’s telling me I don’t know what adaptation is even though I’m the first one to talk about it exactly how he talks about it I.e. Galapagos finches.
I now think you’re deluded as he is …
All I’ve been arguing is that evolution (defined by speciation) is considered a theory and not a fact.
It answers the op perfectly in terms of what is true.
He doesn’t even know that speciation is about reproductive capacity.
Now you are both absurd
Nope. That’s not at all what he said.
You define it that way. Who else does?
Where does the hoax come in?
Yes, he does. Only, he puts the horses before the cart.
At first they could interbreed; after a long isolation of two populations, they had changed so much (through mutation and selection) that they no longer could.
Ta-ra! New species.
It’s complicated in practice, and takes a long time, but the concept is simple.
Unfortunately, bacteria can’t ever interbreed. Maybe you’ve been looking at the wrong life-form.
The truth is despite many many years of researching and experimenting scientists still do not have a ‘workable’ explanation of how life could start. In fact some scientists are now suggesting life must have originated from outer space, which is called panspermia. An example of this comes from Sir Fred Hoyle, who accepted the impossibility of life arising spontaneously by chance and published a book, Evolution from Space. Then there is the much lauded, revered and very vocal advocate of evolution, Richard Dawkins. He also, when interviewed by Ben Stein, was asked to explain how life could have started. He could not explain this by reference to physical or biological causes so resorted to and conceded that a possible explanation was that the first life came here from somewhere else. Outer space.
No one has been able to set up an experiment and make one type of organism evolve into a new type of organism (unless one deliberately removes genetic information or inserts genetic information from another organism, neither of which is true evolution).
"Or a very elaborated hoax upon mankind? "
You kidding, right?
To be this self-centered and ignorant in a philosophy forum is astonishing.
Who on earth said anything about mankind when it comes to evolution like we are something special.
Evolution is not a exercise to create humans.
It is not a hoax against the creator.
Based on the main activity in evolution, I say it is the survival instinct of the Universe.
The creation of a higher level consciousness through trial and error against the reality of an unforgiving environment.
Here on Earth, now, it is us.
For how long ? who knows.
What is next ? who cares if it is not us.
Will we fight ? no difference.
One thing is for certain - maybe two - denial of evolution is hindering our survival because this can explain many of our problems and help to find solutions.
If there is a creator, what if it does not like you?
There are several workable explanations, but no proof. Three and a half billion years later, scattered all over the globe, evidence becomes pretty hard to collect.
Not having every single datum nailed down doesn’t invalidate the preponderance of evidence for the case.
Creationists make out that science is an all-or-nothing proposition; that if they can shed some doubt about one little piece of the puzzle, the whole theory falls apart.
It doesn’t. And they haven’t. They’re mostly making a lot of noise over their own misconceptions and distortions.
(It’s as if they thought they were in court and all they had to do was convince one juror out of twelve that there is reasonable doubt. Science doesn’t work that way. It works by piling up numbers, observations, measurements, descriptions, statistics, more numbers, specimens, diagrams, experimental findings, patterns, adjustments, corrections, and some more numbers.)
It’s one suggestion been kicking around quite a while. It’s possible, I suppose.
Does that possibility affect the process of evolution in some way? If so, how?
Whether this is true depends on what you mean by “type of organism”. Beetles are unlikely ever to turn into orchids and, in the time-span available to experimenters, fruit flies won’t grow into beetles - even if they had some tangible motivation to do so.
In what way does this reflect on a 25-million-year process?
It’s not supposed to be. But the genetic information, the way it’s organized and accessed, sheds a good deal of light on the means and method of ‘true’ evolutionary processes.
There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldn’t we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?
Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?
Evolution is not “Science”. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their “God”.
But what is the cause of evolution?
Than what you said about baking? I seriously doubt it.
JSS wrote:
I would like, very much, to hear you answer your own question James.
“What is the cause of evolution James?”
That’s easy…
The thing that they called “God”.
… which is why this discussion has been so ridiculous.
[quote=“James S Saint”]
There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldn’t we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?
Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?
Evolution is not “Science”. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their “God”.
K: wrong as usual… I don’t in any way shape or form “worship” evolution…
that is what you do… I think evolution answers the question how we got
here better then any other way…it is not the “cause of life”… and
evolution doesn’t even say how life got started… that part is unknown and most
likely will stay unknown…evolution is simply a means to resolve the question
of, how did we get here… in fact, given the choices offered, evolution is by far
the most logical way we got here… using Ockham’s razor, evolution makes
the best sense of all the theories of how we got here…
Kropotkin
You wouldn’t know it one way or another. You simply love to hate those other guys.
There you go. End of argument.
To you, what doesn’t fall into that category?
“Wrong as usual”. That is not what Occam’s Razor is about. And even if it was, the "God did it" ontology is far, far, far simpler than the "for unknown reasons, it kept changing microscopically until it just became what it is in all of its variety and nuances".
we have evidence for evolution and no, zero evidence for
god… you don’t have any evidence for god, so how can you
bring in god into a conversation about science? You can’t…
as far as being the simplest explanation for evolution…
it isn’t the simplest… to accept god as an explanation is to
accept all kinds of stuff like heaven and hell and angels
and sin and guilt, the bible, the list goes on and on of things
that must follow if you accept god… I don’t accept the idea of god,
so I don’t have to worry about all that crap that goes with the belief
in god…it is not simple to believe in god… very complicated stuff
and confusing stuff… like the trinity, to give one example…
Kropotkin
Exactly wrong. You have speculation of Evolution and zero evidence for the lack of God.
The truth is that you don’t know one from the other because you haven’t the sense to define either in any meaningful way. And when pressed, you merely invent a strawman to satisfy your habit of hate.
I mean, we can prove evolution in a few days with bacteria. Then it becomes “micro vs maco” evolution. Then we show macro using dogs and other bred pets. Then it’s some other objection . . . at which point it’s more a matter of not really getting it.
Not until you define it as a falsifiable concept.
HA! Good one.