tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Irrelevant to the OP and borderline proselytizing.
Now, would you care to address Autos question?Autodidact said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
Danmac
Well-Known Member
The essential characteristics of science are:
- It is guided by natural law;
- It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
- It is testable against the empirical world;
- Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
- It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Origin of Kinds
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” guided by natural laws? Certainly mutation and natural selection bring about limited variation in existing kinds; but there is no evidence that mutation and natural selection have ever brought about a new kind from simple earlier kinds. Evolution fails this test. Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” explained by natural law? No, it isn’t. There is no natural explanation of how new genetic information required to produce complex kinds from simple earlier kinds comes from natural mutation and natural selection. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
Only when a scientist uses unnatural processes to remove existing genetic information (that has a known function) from the DNA of one species, and uses it to replace part of the DNA in another species, have new kinds of living organisms been produced. In these experiments the “gene jockey” plays the role of an intelligent designer using a “supernatural” process. Scientists have to resort to intelligent molecular rearrangement because mutation and natural selection is not sufficient to bring about new kinds. Evolution fails this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” tentative? In other words, “Will evolutionists ever accept that new kinds arose through any natural process other than mutation and natural selection?” Well, scientists used to believe in Lamarkian evolution (where parents somehow “willed” their children to be better suited for survival) before they accepted Darwinian evolution. Now we are starting to hear theories about how bacteria can somehow consciously make their offspring evolve to resist antibiotics, so maybe Lamarkian evolution just lost a battle and will eventually win the war. Surveys and news stories that we have reported upon in the past say that some good scientists are rejecting evolution of purely scientific grounds. Therefore, evolution passes this test.
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” falsifiable? Experiment after experiment has failed to show that forced mutation and artificial selection can create any new living kinds from existing earlier kinds. Modern understanding of genetics and information theory shows that new kinds can’t arise from existing kinds. This should be sufficient for falsification, but apparently evolutionists don’t think it is. What more could a scientist possibly do to falsify this doctrine? We don’t know of anything. Evolution fails this test.
The origin of kinds component of the theory of evolution fails four out of five of the court’s criteria for being sceintific.
Is Evolution Scientific?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The question was, "If you don't know what a "kind" is, how would you be able to recognize whether or not evidence supports it?".
Not, "Hey Danmac, could you copy and past a totally irrelevant piece of psudoscience for me?"
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Here ya go 1-800-wah
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You win. The intelligence and integrity contained in your responses is the obvious result of not only your mastery of biological science, but also your exemplary debate skills.
I bow to your superior intellect.
:sarcastic
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Danmac, your whole argument hinged on 'kinds' which thus far you have comprehensively failed to define beyond a four-year old's 'doggie' 'fishie' 'horsy'.
[FONT="]Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.[/FONT]
Orias
Left Hand Path
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The fact that "kind" is never defined makes this question totally meaningless and utterly dishonest.
How do you know it never happens if you don't know what a "kind" is?
How can an experiment be designed to test what can't be defined?
wa:do
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Defining science is a tricky business, so neither side should put too much stock in any particular definition:
Science is Empowering But Hard to Define | The BioLogos Forum
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Just so. Even the Catholic church has established its official position as embracing the theory of evolution (by papal letter).
I am (obviously) a non-theist, but I truly hate to see people do what Danmac is doing here, as many will use a broad brush to lump him in with all Christians. It is incumbent on us all, to not judge other Christians by the actions of Danmac (or any other fundamentalist).
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Hey - wait a minute. Aren't you the same guy that was just chastising me for my immaturity?
I don't mind you trying to be funny (even if you aren't very good at it), but let's at least class it up a little bit. This third grade stuff your throwing out there is simply horrid.
Some more scripture for you, Mr. 151, from the book of TVOR, Chapter 1:
4 Pity not the self anointed martyr, for he swims in his own filth. He will alienate others with boorishness, and then complain that others do not like him.
5 Listen not to the hypocrite, for he will not see the irony of his own words. He will be immune to self reflection.
6 Walk not with the braggart, for he will bear the mark of the anti thinker. The mark will be upon his posts for all to see. He shall post the digits 151 for all to see, as if he knew what he was talking about.
If you'd like, I can probably find the scriptures that address the rest of your transgressions against logic, tact, common decency, and honest debate.
You just say the word, and I'll dig 'em up for you. Stay with me, Danny boy, and together, we can pull you out of this tailspin. I don't know that we can save your soul, but we might be able to salvage some dignity for you before it's too late.
Last edited:
Orias
Left Hand Path
There is a difference between science and 'fantastical science'. It is not tricky to define at all.
Clearly Danmac's approach to this issue is not scientific.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Until you define the word "kind," any post of yours containing the word "kind" is an automatic FAIL.
Now you have added another undefined term, "information." Would you care to define that? If not, please refrain from using it, at the risk of talking gibberish.
As for adding information, obviously every mutation adds information. Duh.
Now, we were discussing a very specific part of the evidence, one that you chose--speciation events. I showed that no matter how you define "kind," (since you refuse to do so), either definition is impossible according to the evidence. Did you have any comment on that? If not, we can now consider your hypothesis refuted.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
I must apologize. I am beginning to believe that you can't help it. It must be a mutated gene. There is always therapy. Again, my condolences.
Again, I apologize. I didn't think you would be able to get any thing past third grade jokes. We don't want to take you up to quickly though. Let's try a fourth grade joke and see how you do with that before we get into Jr high humor.
Q: What did the Scarecrow say when the Wicked Witch knocked the stuffing out of him?
A: "That's the last straw!"
Ecclesiastes 5:3 A man's dreams are realized through hard work, and a fool's voice is recognized by a multitude of words.
I would, but your probably a bit exhausted after using all of those big words. Let's wait a couple of days until you have rested your brain a bit and then we'll talk about it. Don't want to over do it ya know. That reminds me. Did you ever make it to OZ yet, and find that thing you were looking for?
No, you better rest now. We'll wait until you make it to OZ before we go any further.
Last edited:
Danmac
Well-Known Member
kind n.
the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms. For instance, the dog, the wolf, the coyote, are clearly in the same baramin. And there is a definite discontinuity between this baramin and the bovine baramin, although both are mammals. Baramins can be partially identified by successful (live birth) hybrids, but probably go way beyond what hybridization can do today. Genetic studies may help determine discontinuities. The fossil record is also a help.
genetic information
Last edited:
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Sorry, that was no better. Like the rest of your posts, this one was just drivel, and a waste of good, usable bandwidth.
Wotan
Active Member
"This definition provides a very basic framework for research into a potential scientific definition for 'kind', but it is far too general to be of any use by itself. It certainly does not provide a definition that could be used to generate a robust and testable description of the delineation between kinds, and could not alone be used to definitively distinguish whether two organisms belong to the same kind."
The above from DanMan's link. Actually the following paragraph.
Does anyone else get the impression that our devout friend is W-A-A-A-Y over his head when the subject is science and how research is done?
Like he has NO IDEA. He doesn't even READ what he cites. He just goggle's and copies w/o having any idea of what he is saying.
I think this kind of thing is spelled i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t.
Does anyone else get the impression that our devout friend is W-A-A-A-Y over his head when the subject is science and how research is done?
Like he has NO IDEA. He doesn't even READ what he cites. He just goggle's and copies w/o having any idea of what he is saying.
I think this kind of thing is spelled i-g-n-o-r-a-n-t.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
And what is "genetic information"?
wa:do