Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong. (contradiction, creation, theist) - Page 33

camanintx · #**321** 04-11-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

You can keep saying that, but what real evidence or even proof that this is so.

The "law" of gravity may be derived from our observations of an apple, but try to suspend that law for a few moments. The apple will still fall.

Human observation is always incomplete. Regardless of what we may call something, it exists independently of our feeble senses.

As Jay and Painted Wolf have pointed out, what we call the 'Law of Gravity' is just a mathematical equation which describes how objects behave.

Unlike criminal laws, scientific laws do not control behavior, they simply describe it.

Evolution is a law only in as much as we can say that the inherited traits of all living organisms change over time. Since there is no mathematical equation describing this behavior, Evolution can never be a scientific law, just a theory.

Jayhawker Soule · #**322** 04-11-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camanintx

Evolution can never be a scientific law, just a theory.

Please don't try to help me again.

camanintx · #**323** 04-11-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Please don't try to help me again.

Are you suggesting that Evolution could be a scientific law?

From LabWrite Glossary:

scientific law: A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met.
Examples of scientific laws: Faraday’s Law of electromagnetic induction, Coulomb’s Law of electrostatic attraction, Dalton’s Law of partial pressures, Boyle’s Gas Law.

What form would any mathematical statement regarding the Law of Evolution take?

Mr Spinkles · #**324** 04-11-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

So, how do you account for the amazing similarities? Luck?

Certainly not with miracles. Similar adaptations/body plans can evolve independently when the environment is similar. This is because of the simple fact that the non-random, physical constraints on survival imposed by a given environment favor a limited number of optimal adaptations/body plans.

In similar fashion, isolated streams often find their own tortuous paths to the same river. It's not luck that leads them all to the same ultimate destination; nor is it miraculous. It's the very non-random force of gravity and the overall shape of the landscape.

Scuba Pete · #**325** 04-11-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

The law serves the apple - not the other way around.

I am getting the mental image of a scene from one of those Kung Fu movies. It would not surprise me if your next statement is "Take the pebble out of my hand, Grasshopper."
Saying the "law serves the apple" does little to allay my fears that the apple will be compelled to fall once I let go of it. I believe that the law of gravity had a lot to do with the roots of the apple tree going into the earth, and with the size and functionality of the apple's stem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

This is because of the simple fact that the non-random, physical constraints on survival imposed by a given environment favor a limited number of optimal adaptations/body plans.

You have given a clear description of rules based evolution. I love it. Similar factors and filling a similar role should produce similar phenotypes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by camenintx

As Jay and Painted Wolf have pointed out, what we call the 'Law of Gravity' is just a mathematical equation which describes how objects behave.

Semantical gymnastics aside... the "rules" describe the forces that are acting on the apple. The forces ergo become the rules that the object obeys. If you fail to carry the "2" in your equation, the apple will still fall at the same rate.

The rules, the forces and even the factors serve no one. Like the water coursing through the Grand Canyon these rules are constantly changing us, our species and our planet.