The evolution of the eye

[ChristineM]

Mr. Smart Guy: What will cats evolve into and what will dogs evolve into? A good theory should be able to accurately predict what will happen. I guess macro-evolution isn't a good theory.

At least you admit you guess.

Pity you guess wrongly

 

[Jose Fly]

That's good too hear, I've been having my doubts after recent political events in America seem to have emboldened them.

Also, in the UK, following a disastrous election the PM is attempting to make a government by teaming up with a bunch of creationists...

Well, I don't think creationists are totally going away any time soon, but they do seem to be on the decline. To me, most of it looks generational where it's not so much that we're changing people's minds as it is that the older generations, who are much more creationist, are dying off and being replaced by younger generations, who are much more on the science side of things.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, I don't think creationists are totally going away any time soon, but they do seem to be on the decline. To me, most of it looks generational where it's not so much that we're changing people's minds as it is that the older generations, who are much more creationist, are dying off and being replaced by younger generations, who are much more on the science side of things.

You are probably right in the long run, far right political parties who think the world is 6000 years old and that women who have been raped cannot be allowed an abortion can't last too long. And their following goes with them

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On the other hand, their understanding of science continues to serve as a powerful demonstration that not everything is subject to evolution.

Need some clarification here. What are you proposing is not subject evolution?

Er ... "their understanding of science."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But it seems that if replicating molecules were simply a result of electromagnetic reactions,
then we would be able to simply provide the correct proportions of 'primeval soup'
and then life would spontaneously come into being. Now I'm sure there are links claiming this,
just as there are links claiming all sorts of things.

But if the life-process were just a result of chemical reactions, then it would be simply a matter
of supplying the correct chemical concoctions into various parts of the body and we would
have bodily immortality. But we do not. No amount of Dr Frankenstein's and billion dollar budgets
has ever managed to increase the lifespan of humanity beyond its 120 years.

Sure we have stopped some types of death: chemical-death that is. But if a body was a machine,
then we should be able to repair it indefinitely. Just like we can do with any other type of machine.

After all, if physical death were the only type of death, then there could never be a justification
for suicide; or even the essence that the Greeks called Thanatos : the desire for death.

I always love these sorts of arguments! It's long-winded, so let me pare it down to its essence: "We don't know how life started, yet -- therefore we wil never ever know -- therefore God!"

And by the way, it is precisely this sort of argument that, as human knowledge has advanced since the axial age, that continues to render the "god of the gaps" smaller and smaller and smaller...

 

[shunyadragon]

Er ... "their understanding of science."

Thank you for the clarification. It was unclear who the anonymous 'they' were or are.

 

[omega2xx]

Does not answer the problem with your stone walling lack of knowledge in science and insistence of 'proof' which is not how science works.

Any one who says science does not prove/disprove theories is ignorant of the true basis for science. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have gotten from the evos. They say it because they recognize science CANNOT prove ANYTHING in the TOE. That I don't understand science is another ignorant remark. I can read, I can study and I can understand and I don't need a degree to understand the basic. Evidently your degree did not help; you in some areas.

No, one cannot have a working knowledge of science from the layman's perspective especially when there is irrational religious agenda.

Another ignorant remark. Just because I am not willing f to accept your view does not mean I am wrong, and there are scientist far better qualified than a geologist who disagree with you. I have not brought religion into this discussion, so why have you? You are not qualified to declare my religious views irrational, especially when you use some of the Bible to support your irrational religious views.

Your understanding of genetics and how RNA/DNA mutations function in the science of evolution is worse than dismal, and reflects a self imposed ignorance of science.

The DNA of the offspring of parents may contain mutations that are not in the parents genes, and this is an objectively observed fact. and the DNA contains many genes that are not active and may be activated by mutations in later generations.

Evidently a degree in geology doe sin include understanding mutations, which which you clearly do not. Here is mutations 101---mutations do not create new characteristics, they only alter characteristics. That is why they can't be a mechanism for a change of species. To make my point, you CAN'T offer one example of a mutation changing a species. Before you mention time , time can't change the laws of genetics.

By the way you have conveniently failed to respond to the following:

Since science does not prove anything. how can you prove any science mentioned in the Bible? Any examples of what you can prove?

How can you prove the Aristotelian (Ptolemaic system) astronomy described in Genesis?

Still waiting . . . !!!!!!!

I have mentioned it many times but to show you don't know what you are talking about, I will gladly do it again.

Science doesn't prove anything: If you ever need a blood transfusion, when they want to type your blood, tell them not to bother, they can't PROVE what type you have and just to give you what is most convenient. Then tell you relatives to make your funeral arrangement because if they can't and give you the wrong type, some else science has proved will happen. You will be history.

Earlier you mentioned DNA/RNA affection mutations. How do you know they do if science doesn't prove things. why do you use something that can't prove what it says. You ignorant view of science makes science of no value.

The only science in the Bible that I know of is "after their kind, which is proven by repetition and observation thousands of times every day. To claim "after their kind" does not refute evolution is an admission you lack understanding of genetics.

 

[shunyadragon]

Any one who says science does not prove/disprove theories is ignorant of the true basis for science. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have gotten from the evos. They say it because they recognize science CANNOT prove ANYTHING in the TOE. That I don't understand science is another ignorant remark. I can read, I can study and I can understand and I don't need a degree to understand the basic. Evidently your degree did not help; you in some areas.

Do you remotely understand Methodological Naturalism and process of falsification? Apparently not. You are probably more qualified to perform brain surgery.

Another ignorant remark. Just because I am not willing to accept your view does not mean I am wrong, and there are scientist far better qualified than a geologist who disagree with you. I have not brought religion into this discussion, so why have you? You are not qualified to declare my religious views irrational, especially when you use some of the Bible to support your irrational religious views.

It is not my view it is 99% of all the scientists of the world in the fields of geology, biology, chemistry and physics that support the science of evolution and an earth billions of years old.

Your understanding of genetics and how RNA/DNA mutations function in the science of evolution is worse than dismal, and reflects a self imposed ignorance of science.

Still tragically true!

Evidently a degree in geology does in include understanding mutations, which which you clearly do not. Here is mutations 101---mutations do not create new characteristics, they only alter characteristics. That is why they can't be a mechanism for a change of species. To make my point, you CAN'T offer one example of a mutation changing a species. Before you mention time , time can't change the laws of genetics.

Totally untrue! Can you cite genetics scientists that support this foolish garbage. While you are at how about a couple of genetic scientists that supports your Creationist view.

Science doesn't prove anything: If you ever need a blood transfusion, when they want to type your blood, tell them not to bother, they can't PROVE what type you have and just to give you what is most convenient. Then tell you relatives to make your funeral arrangement because if they can't and give you the wrong type, some else science has proved will happen. You will be history.

This is an example of the applied technology of the basic sciences. and not the process of methodological naturalism and falsification that determined the science of human physiology.

Earlier you mentioned DNA/RNA affection mutations. How do you know they do if science doesn't prove things. why do you use something that can't prove what it says. You ignorant view of science makes science of no value.

This reflects an ongoing self-imposed ignorance of science based on your religious agenda and not science.

The only science in the Bible that I know of is "after their kind, which is proven by repetition and observation thousands of times every day. To claim "after their kind" does not refute evolution is an admission you lack understanding of genetics.

Please cite the genetic scientists from peer reviewed science journals to support your foolish notions. You have failed to answer the question:

How can you prove the Aristotelian (Ptolemaic system) astronomy described in Genesis?

Still waiting . . . !!!!!!!

 

[DavidFirth]

At least you admit you guess.

Pity you guess wrongly

Make the predictions based on the theory. Go ahead. Make my day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Make the predictions based on the theory. Go ahead. Make my day.

To 'make your day' you would have to speak to Clint Eastwood.

The entire science of evolution is based on prediction in genetics, physiology, and and the presence of the fossils in stratigraphy.

 

[ChristineM]

Make the predictions based on the theory. Go ahead. Make my day.

Macroevolution
What is macroevolution?
Patterns in macroevolution


So is your claim based on a bronze age book of god magic? Yeah, go for it.

Or perhaps you could provide a link or citation to the research upon which your theory is based?

 

[DavidFirth]

Macroevolution
What is macroevolution?
Patterns in macroevolution


So is your claim based on a bronze age book of god magic? Yeah, go for it.

Or perhaps you could provide a link or citation to the research upon which your theory is based?

I simply asked for predictions as to what dogs and cats will evolve into next. All of your BS is just that, BS.

Surely you know. You should be able to tell by their slowly ever changing DNA. Right? Wrong. What a stupid theory macro-evolution is.

 

[DavidFirth]

To 'make your day' you would have to speak to Clint Eastwood.

The entire science of evolution is based on prediction in genetics, physiology, and and the presence of the fossils in stratigraphy.

Okay, so what's your prediction?

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, so what's your prediction?

Scientists will find more intermediates between species in the history of life on earth in both fossils and genetic research, particularly intermediates in Cambrian rocks of Canada for fossils. This is the same predictions paleontologist have mad for years. For example they made predictions for the type of species between whales and their lad mammal ancestors and what strata these intermediate species would be found, and recent years these fossils have been found in the strata where they were predicted.

 

[DavidFirth]

Scientists will find more intermediates between species in the history of life on earth in both fossils and genetic research. This is the same predictions paleontologist have mad for years. For example they made predictions for the type of species between whales and their lad mammal ancestors and what strata these intermediate species would be found, and recent years these fossils have been found in the strata where they were predicted.

You are talking about micro-evolution, evolution among like kinds. I'm not talking about fossils. All of that is guesswork.

What will whales be millions of years from now? Cats? Dogs?

 

[shunyadragon]

What will whales be millions of years from now? Cats? Dogs?

Again, this is not the predictions scientists make. Domestic animals are in an artificial environment not subject to the natural processes of evolution, Nonetheless, a fairly sound prediction is that whales may become mostly extinct due to human influence on the environments.

 

[DavidFirth]

Again, this is not the predictions scientists make. Domestic animals are in an artificial environment not subject to the natural processes of evolution, Nonetheless, a fairly sound prediction is that whales may become mostly extinct due to human influence on the environments.

Then the theory of macro-evolution is not a good theory.

Theory-
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then the theory of macro-evolution is not a good theory.

Theory-
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

Yes, since Darwin first proposed the science of evolution and made predictions, many predictions have been made over the past 170 years of unobserved phenomena at the time the predictions were made. In the history of the science of evolution most of these predictions have been verified by observed phenomena and genetics.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, since Darwin first proposed the science of evolution and made predictions, many predictions have been made over the past 170 years of unobserved phenomena at the time the predictions were made. In the history of the science of evolution most of these predictions have been verified by observed phenomena and genetics.

He accurately predicted what dogs, cats and whales would evolve into?

 

[Jose Fly]

I simply asked for predictions as to what dogs and cats will evolve into next. All of your BS is just that, BS.

Surely you know. You should be able to tell by their slowly ever changing DNA. Right? Wrong. What a stupid theory macro-evolution is.

So your argument is "You cannot accurately predict what dogs and cats will evolve to be, therefore no populations evolve ever"? Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all?