Posted on 01/13/2006 8:24:51 PM PST by WatchYourself
How can someone observe, study or experiment on evolution? Evolution is the process of something moving from one stage of development to another. What do we really have to scientifically prove evolution?
A scientist might have a fossil, but we can only speculate as to the age and appearance of the animal creating that fossil. No one has ever witnessed evolution of life, no one here now was there to observe, study and experiment. Like it or not, we can only form theories and beliefs about what might have been. As sound as these theories might be, they are and will always be theories. Evolution is simply a system of belief based on what we think might have happened. Those who believe in evolution have faith in the scientist’s abilities to speculate and imagine what might have been. This is not science. This is faith.
It is time we removed the phony and inaccurate label of ‘science’ from evolution and see it for what it really is - a religion, based on faith and a system of belief. If public schools are not allowed to teach religion, then the theories of evolution have no place in a public school classroom. If they are allowed to teach theories based on faith, like evolution, then creationism should be taught also.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
Umm, by chance are you a philosophy major? Because theory is not an *explanation* of fact - it is an ATTEMPT at explanation, a hypothesis forwarded for review. The whole idea behind theory is to try and PROVE it, thereby rendering it fact.
Philosophy finds more beauty in what *could be* rather than in what *is*. That is why I am assuming you must be majoring in liberal arts - which is not a bad thing - but it is wrong to assume that a theory is better than a fact. Theory is about finding truth - and in science, truth is in fact.
Please study fig. 4.4.1
There's a law of nature here: If an ERV is in the same place in the genome of a person and a gorilla, it will also be found in the same place in the chimpanzee genome.
But wait, there's more!
If an ERV is found in one species of Old World monkey, and one species of New World monkey, it will be found in all species of ape, including ourselves.
Many similar laws can be read off the diagram.
Read the essay which the diagram is illustrating. Think about it really hard.
The claim isn't something like "96& of chimp DNA ...", it's that certain pieces of the genome are identical between species, and are always distributed among them in the way the diagram shows.
Actually yes, DNA can be seen, and is a physical entity. As far as seeing it with my OWN eyes, I don't own the equipment (I wish I did) but others can produce differing images for me if I requested the results of a DNA test from this hypothetical piece of bone. DNA is entirely proveable based upon images, facts and tests (which should be repeated so results can be replicated). Replication of results is important in any study, test, theory or hypothesis.
And just where did Aristotle get his training in micro or molecular biology?
He invented and named the sciences starting with biology.
The advances in biology such as micro or molecular biology came much later, most of it last century. The concepts of study and methods were his.
Think of Jewish men...
It has been awhile but I will study it and put it together for you.
In the meantime, I can tell you this..."wyattearp--In chapter 1, birds (fowl) were created out of the water. In chapter 2, they were created out of the ground."
In chapter 1, it clearly states that "sealife" and all associated with it, were created(out of the water) on the 5th day and before Adam.
In chapter 2, the "beasts" and birds were created out of the ground, after Adam.
No contradiction.
Like i said I would have to read it again, im not a biblical scholar.
Nope, my college days are far behind me and most of my interest was in mathematics and drinking.
Because theory is not an *explanation* of fact - it is an ATTEMPT at explanation, a hypothesis forwarded for review. The whole idea behind theory is to try and PROVE it, thereby rendering it fact.
Explanations of fact are only as good as we can make them. They're not always entirely correct however.
Philosophy finds more beauty in what *could be* rather than in what *is*. That is why I am assuming you must be majoring in liberal arts - which is not a bad thing - but it is wrong to assume that a theory is better than a fact. Theory is about finding truth - and in science, truth is in fact
Theories are generally considered to be more important than laws because they provide us with the big picture of how things work rather than just a formula to calculate results with. E=mc^2 was formulated years before Einstein popularized it, but it really wasn't that noteworthy. Einstein's theory of relativity on the other hand rocked the scientific world. Einstein understood what it meant and the ramifications of it.
You can see various things which can be reliably interpreted as indicators of the DNA structure, but you can't see DNA.
As far as seeing it with my OWN eyes, I don't own the equipment (I wish I did) but others can produce differing images for me if I requested the results of a DNA test from this hypothetical piece of bone.
These are not images of DNA. They are a record of the sizes of various segments of the helix, and the meaning of this record is entirely dependent on a previously established understanding of the existence, structure, and significance of the DNA itself.
The DNA is entirely proveable based upon images, facts and tests (which should be repeated so results can be replicated). Replication of results is important in any study, test, theory or hypothesis.
You should have used the word 'why' rather than 'how'.
Evolution is untestable, because no one has ever duplicated it. If you can demonstrate even a one cell organism 'evolving' into a two-cell organism, you'd win a Nobel Prize. It hasn't been demonstrated. if it were testable, don't you think it wopuld have been done by now?
NOOO! NOT OPEN DISCUSSION!! We will all descend into madness, and devolve back to the rank of protozoa!!! (sarc/OFF)
What is wrong with asking questions? What is wrong with sticking one's hands in the ground searching for clues? What is wrong with thinking for oneself, or perhaps even coming up with NEW THEORIES?
Nothing. Nothing is wrong with making new statements, asking "what if", creating new scenarios. It is entirely possible that no school would want to teach ID, but it is also possible that their motivations for doing so have little to do with science and more to do with agenda.
Schools have a right to teach whatever they like, but when they stifle creativity, innovation, and discussion, they cease to be schools. They descend to the rank of propagandism, and destroy science in the process...
The point was, as I stated, that it doesn't matter.
Evolution is defined as the study of how and why populations of living things change over time.
Abiogenesis, which is much more mysterious, is how nonliving matter became living. Since there are, by definition, no organisms to evolve, Darwin's theory cannot be used. There may have been analogous processes at work, but they dealt with chemicals, not cells.
There is a fair amount of research being done, but no firm results yet.
My own guess is that a lot of questions will be answered when the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are explored in depth.
It is apparent that your screen name is as appropriate for you as mine is for me.
Yep, you would think that they would invite these questions and maybe they would arrive at their answers sooner.
Please refer to post 142. If an ERV were in the same position in the genome of a gorilla and a chimp, but not a person, evolution would be in **big** trouble.
The cliche falsification is a Precambrian rabbit fossil
TalkOrigins has a ton of potential falsifications.
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.