0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keep deluding yourself : there is no scientific evidence for macro-evolution , just materialist fairy tales speculations , simply because no chemical theory to date can account for that .
In short :The non-materialist theory of nature in this case that has more explanatory power than the false materialist theory of nature.....Only evidence should show the way to scientists thus....
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg441968#msg441968 date=1412819579]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2014 21:27:06In short :The non-materialist theory of nature in this case that has more explanatory power than the false materialist theory of nature.....Only evidence should show the way to scientists thus....That's exactly what people have been asking you to provide for more than a year now - examples of the explanatory power of your theory, instead of merely attacking the one you don't agree with it. Evidence for your theory, instead of simply complaining that another one doesn't explain things "fully."
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2014 17:58:04Keep deluding yourself : there is no scientific evidence for macro-evolution , just materialist fairy tales speculations , simply because no chemical theory to date can account for that . Of course there's evidence of macro evolution. Micro- evolution is a term that has been co-opted by creationists because even they can't deny that there are obvious observable changes that can be selected for in animal breeding. They're pretty much forced into making that concession, but dig in their heels claiming there's no macro-evolution - one species cannot become another, a dinosaur cannot evolve into a bird. Creationists have a tendency to move the species line when it suits them, on the one hand claiming that the identity and separation between species is fixed and unchanging, and there are no "links" But when you try to point out the links - examples of different, but closely related species that can still sometimes reproduce (dog-wolf, dog-jackal) although usually with lower fertility, suddenly the species line is moved to include them as well - "they're all really just different kinds of dogs." Never the less, there are plenty examples of observable artificially or experimentally induced speciation - with Drosophilia flies, in fish breeding, and in plants. A selective force is applied until the progeny are morphologically different and are no longer able to reproduce, either naturally or artificially, with the parent stock. There are also examples of speciation occurring in nature as well - not just in the fossil record but in recent times. One of my favorite examples:The February, 1989 issue of Scientific American ("A Breed Apart.") describes a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that was a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit (commonly called the thorn apple.) About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The species split into two groups that feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. This is an interesting case because the changes in the two groups are related to their different food choice – their development, maturity, and mating becoming synchronized with the different ripening time of one fruit or the other, causing the two groups to become both developmentally and genetically different, and sexually incompatible with one another, despite sharing the same general geographical region.What is it about the process of speciation that you think needs supernatural help, Don? Why do you think it requires a designer?
If things were indeed intelligently designed, they would be optimal. Thus adaptation within a species would be unnecessary and the variability of genetics, which produces a very few successful evolutes and an awful lot of painful deformities and deficiencies, would have been eliminated. You might make a weak case for design, or at least a series of discarded prototypes, but there is no evidence for a guiding intelligence. Life, at least on this planet, is either an inevitable consequence of the geometries of the p orbital and the hydrogen bond, or the plaything of a sadistic deity. The first statement meets Occam's criterion, and is explanatory.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2014 20:37:55Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2014 17:30:07Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.And, re."Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "Nope.It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trialWhat are you talking about ? The man is a prominent chemist who should know what he's talking about , and he's no proponent of ID .For your information : no chemical theory can account for either macro-evolution nor for the origin of life , let alone for biological or life information .That's a fact you should know , a fact known to all chemists , biologists ...And yes, ID is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : read those books i mentioned above on the subject , instead of relying on wikipedia .You're confusing creationism with ID , so, since when are courts the place where scientific theories are settled ? lol
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2014 17:30:07Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.And, re."Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "Nope.It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trial
Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2014 17:25:24Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2014 20:37:55Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2014 17:30:07Bored Chemist : See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus : Prominent Chemist Says Scientists Don’t Really Understand Evolution http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/995875-prominent-chemist-says-scientists-dont-really-understand-evolution/I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.And, re."Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : "Nope.It's not a theory in the scientific sense and the courts have noticed that it's creationism in (poor) disguise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Kitzmiller_trialWhat are you talking about ? The man is a prominent chemist who should know what he's talking about , and he's no proponent of ID .For your information : no chemical theory can account for either macro-evolution nor for the origin of life , let alone for biological or life information .That's a fact you should know , a fact known to all chemists , biologists ...And yes, ID is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : read those books i mentioned above on the subject , instead of relying on wikipedia .You're confusing creationism with ID , so, since when are courts the place where scientific theories are settled ? lol OK, for a start, he is, in fact a signatory to thishttp://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660 which is used to indicate his support for "ID"That's rather boringly factual, rather than as you describe it "ignorant".It's equally clear that so called "intelligent design" is creationist- it requires a "Designer" who, in turn needs to have been created as well as to create.Even the proponents accept that they have no scientific theory"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[4][5][6] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[7][8] while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[9] " (from wiki)And there is very clear evidence of macro evolution.You have about half your DNA in common with a banana.So, the essence of your thread seems to be a set of false statements.Why is that?
Well :"Evolution " or rather adaptation occurs only within species : "micro-evolution" or rather micro-adaptation . There is absolutely no scientific evidence for HOW the so-called macro-evolution occurs : no chemical theory to date can account for that , or ever .
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg442216#msg442216 date=1413231624]To be a scientist, you need a lot of humility because, however clever your hypothesis, the facts always win, and you rarely get to explain everything
To be an observer of science, you need a lot of patience, because it sometimes takes years or even centuries to work out something obvious like why the sky is blue or what powers the sun.
Darwin was not a priest. He was a scientist. So you can't expect his writing to reveal all the deepest secrets of the universe, unlike L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or any other charlatan you care to name. The Cambrian explosion was a long time ago, and a pretty major event that lasted a lot longer than humans have been around, let alone science. So don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation, and don't denigrate the only hope we have of ever explaining it.