Posted on 06/01/2017 6:17:48 PM PDT by lasereye
Simple test:
Take 30 concrete blocks, sand and mortar. Set them down in three separate piles.
How long will it take for them to naturally form into a wall 3 concrete blocks high?
Bachelors in geology?
Interesting you only use ad hom and won’t defend your statements.
If you can’t see the similarity in evolution and climate change, you are biased.
And not a good scientist.
In both cases solid science is used for distortions for ultra-scientific purpose, e.g. Support social,or political movements and goals.
Articles such as this one also fall in to that category, although for the most part, his hard scientific observations with regard to Chimp Human DNA sequence identity were of note and most likely accurate. His framing of the question was accurate and discription of the problems on genomic sequencing were accurate.
At the same time, I don’t know why he would publish only in his institute’s own journal.
Probably for the same reason in that he also jumps to ultra-scientific conclusions.
“I can tell you scientifically why AGW is NOT a scientific theory and why TToE is.”
Do it.
“Evolution is a theory and doesn’t claim without uncertainty to explain all genetic changes over time.”
Yes to an extent. There are theories under evolution which would make claims that can be proven or disproven. It’s not a theory if it does not makes claims that can be proven or disproven. You really hit on the main reason evolution isn’t really a theory and can’t be disproven. It’s only actual claim is everything found conforms evolution because nothing else can be.
Which is actually, oddly, good enough, bit it’s philosophical, not necessarily scientific. One can’t scientifically study God or God did it.
“The IC”R” again posits no alternative view to explain, other than to say “God did it”. This is a fine theological position but it lacks any scientific proof.””
A rather obvious observation. Usually atheists are quite proud of themselves and assured of their genius for having a partial grasp on something so self evident.
I wonder what Tomkin’s PhD is in? It certainly isn’t in science, that much is obvious.
This notion that DNA science *disproves* evolution is a surprise to all life scientists who use the theory of evolution to guide their work and make new discoveries. In fact, I think that the tens of thousands of scientists who have published on evolutionary biology would be stunned to find out that all of their hard work elucidating the processes of evolution did not actually show anything at all.
>>Evolutionary theory did not predict what DNA<<
Proof you do not understand science.
You can’t even articulate a position.
Modern synthesis predicted larger organisms would have more genes and species specific genes.
Genomics has found that to be the exact opposite.
Most mammalian genes are essentially interchangeable.
That was not predicted, but is considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence for common descent.
No, it is NOT falsifiable to true believers in ToE. There is always some crazy naturalistic theory which attempts to make the impossible possible. Frankly, it is irrational to believe that a phenomenon such as hearing “evolved”. But if you want to believe this really happened, no one can stop you.
bbb
“Because it is agenda driven and result oriented. “I will prove what I believe.” That’s not science — or should I say, that never used to be science. Thanks to the global warming fruit loops, believing something now means truth with no more evidence than criticism of opposing points of view. Very sad.”
Sure.
But his understanding and presentation of the genomics issue was accurate and informed.
I find this to be the case with a lot of these ICR articles. Good understanding and analysis of a question, making valid critical points, but then leaping to a foregone conclusion.
Micro evolution is essentially variation in species. Just because both chihuahuas and Great Danes coexist does not prove evolution. They’re both dogs.
What selection forces scream out for a frizzard?
“You need only to find a modern horse skeleton next to millions year old dinosaur fragments.”
Explain how that would disprove evolution.
Careful, my friend.
What also does not help the evolutionists is the fact that there “evidence” keeps getting disproved like Plitdown Man & the faux fossil hybrid they erroneously asserted was a “proof” of a species in “transition”. There is in fact no evidence documenting one species transitioning into another species & this fact has even mystified some evolutionists but not to the extent of disabusing themselves of their false notions concerning the origin of man.
“A rather obvious observation. Usually atheists are quite proud of themselves and assured of their genius for having a partial grasp on something so self evident.”
If someone feels one must scientifically prove the existence of God, that doesn’t say much for their faith, does it?
If an organization feels it must prove that which most accept as part of faith, it’s not too far from atheism, is it?
You missed the obvious point. You were too blinded by the need to call me an atheist that you took the side of your faithless brothers at IC”R”. Think, man, think!
There is a one day sale of a book by Bruce Fenton on Amazon called “Into Africa” The Kindle version is selling for $1.99 today (June 1st) He took all the available data produced by DNA and Genome studies and concluded that humanity migrated Into Africa not once, but twice. There are also other interesting tid bits regarding the different branches of man. Well worth the price today.
You can see micro evolution in individual species adapting to the environment or changing conditions such as the height in Asian populations verses today to hundred years ago.
I wasn’t trying to prove evolution, just the opposite.
You can’t find species changing from A to B but you can find micro changes do to environmental changes not mutations.
Let's do the math ...
My keyboard has 104 keys ... how many characters are in the complete works of WS? Google it ... its 3,695,990 characters ... but (1/104) raised to the 3,695,990 power is not even computable. Lets start real small.
Let's start with the phrase "To be or not to be, that is the question?" ...
With 104 keys any random key has a (1/104) chance of being struck. Put the correct ones in order and your probability of the phrase is (1/104)^41 = 2.0E-83 ... ignoring the shift key for the capital and the question mark.
Lets say your monkey is a speed typist and can randomly type 41 characters in 1 second.
What is the probability of him typing the phrase in a hundred TRILLION years?
86400(sec/day)*365(days/year)*100E12(years) = 3.15E21 ... total probability 2.0E-83 * 3.15E21 = 6.31E-62
How about we put a monkey on every square foot of the planet each going at it ... surface area of the earth is 5.49E15 ft^2 ...
total probability = 6.31E-62 * 5.49E15 = 3.46E-46
And this is just the phrase ...
I think it was Fred Hoyle who said that you had a better chance of having a tornado go through a junkyard and creating a fully functional airliner than life appearing spontaneously. The sheer mathematical odds are astronomical.
Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. is no more of a scientist than the so-called scientists who walk lock-step with the climate change religion. They all have an agenda that is result oriented. None of them are credible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.