Posted on 08/18/2005 7:39:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
War, disease, drought/starvation, natural disaster, etc.
"Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of Evolution?"
Big premises of Darwin's theory have already been falsified - at least to the extent that they are the drivers of evolution.
Darwin postulated that all species were in gradual change, and that gradual change via natural selection was the norm. In fact, it appears that gradual change, rapid change and stasis all exist, with stasis and rapid change being the norm for "complex" species.
When everyone gets past the religion vs. science debates, people will finally start realizing that Darwin's overemphasis on natural selection and gradualism is not an accurate description of the totality of evolution.
Even the classic giraffe example has now been shown to be a result of sexual selection - not natural selection.
IMO, the human species is more likely to have evolved from homo eructus via triblism and sexual selection than from natural selection.
Whether tribalism is a sign of "intelligence" or "intelligence directed", I have no idea. But I cannot imagine how anyone could look to the morphology differences in African tribes that live in the same regions and conclude that tribalism isn't likely to prmote speciation.
Also, I think there's no evidence of the idea that genes are passed on through "chance". Sure, chance may have something to do with it. But perhaps creatures can control their reporoductive output through some subconscious means with regards to their environment, just like they control other things. Studies now confirm that there are links between the types and volumes of sperm ejaculated, and the mating conditions.
Whoa there, hoss. It's not worth it.
There is most certainly a "who" in the universe; at the very least, us.
Look at the examples that I cited, all of which are incontrovertibly explained by ID: Artificial Intelligence, GM crops, genetically modified animals (e.g. laboratory pigs that produce human hormones), computer viri, and self-replicating machines.
Pay no attention to the attention-starved troll.
"They have a function. Whether or not they have a 'purpose' is a matter of philosophy or religion, not science."
It's a semantic differnce. Purpose and function are the same thing, unless you chose to attribute more meaning to one than the other.
Please see RWP's excellent summation of the distinction between 'micro-ID' and 'macro-ID':
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462875/posts?page=507#507
Fallacy of equivocation. There are two common uses of intelligent design
1. Intelligent design of human acts, as in the intelligent design of buildings, computer code, pharmaceutical agents, etc., by contemporary humansThe two bear no relation, except in the phrase used to describe them, and therefore demonstration of one does not in any way demonstrate the other.
2. 'Intelligent design' as the proposition that life or some part of it originated as the implemented design of some unspecified, non-human intelligent agent, many millions of years ago.
Do I owe you a drink or something?! What did I say that touched such a nerve??
And if a living dinosaur were found today, how could that cause problems (except in Japan)?
Nice try.
But where's The Great Spaghetti Monster?
Then use the word "function" when that is all that matters.
" The whole problem with getting through to ID proponents is making them appreciate the bias behind their assumptions."
Likewise, anyone who assumes that all IDers are bias creationists can rarely be expected to have an intelligent opinion on ID.
**************
LOL! It's so rare to find any humour in these threads.
Thanks.
In that case, your comment was irrelevant to the physical examples that I cited. Try again.
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.