I had a friend demonstrate the TOE for me. He took an old pocket watch and placed it in a cloth bag. He laid it on a table and beat the bag with a hammer, destroying the watch inside.
He then shook the bag, and shook the bag, and then poured it onto the table. His statement still rings true..." there is a better chance of the watch coming out whole, than man having evolved from a spark in the ether..."
There is no "natural selection". There is just a "theory" about it...
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) pronunciation n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-answers.com
That is a very naive demonstration of evolution.
Firstly, the process is extremely slow. The processes that set it running in the first place, even more so. Think millions of years. Multiply that by thousands.
Secondly, the watch is made of more-or-less chemically inert substances, and do not have microscopic complexity. By that, I mean that the individual parts of the watch do not have the versatility to maintain shape and size, when subjected to physical phenomena, as do the parts of a living cell, which are at the molecular level- which can, ironically, despite the smaller sizes involved- come out in better shape than individual macroscopic parts of a watch.
In simpler words, it's harder to split an atom, or molecule, than it is to break the tooth of a watch gear. I can give you a pinch of salt, and a watch component. Hammer the two as violently as you can. What do you think will disintegrate better? The molecules of salt(NaCl) into Na and Cl atoms, or the watch component?
Thirdly, the inertness of the watch materials prohibits the range of interactions and combinations that organic, lifeless molecules are permitted to have, with the surrounding environment.
We have fossils of snakes with tiny hind limbs and birds with clawed forelimbs.
He then shook the bag, and shook the bag, and then poured it onto the table. His statement still rings true..." there is a better chance of the watch coming out whole, than man having evolved from a spark in the ether..."
There is no "natural selection". There is just a "theory" about it...
I disagree. It proves Natural selection. Your friend survived the encounter with the watch. He will continue to pass on the idiot gene that confuses Evolution with Abiogenesis.
What exactly is your point? That something that is a theory is not credible?
I suppose you are aware of the theory of gravity? Some call it a law of gravity. But no one really knows what gravity is so it is best catagorized as a theory.
So you are saying that gene changes causing phenotypic traits that lead to superior reproduction probabilities do not lead to the generation of like kind that carry that genetic trait? Do you need an explanation about what constitutes superior reproduction probabilities?
That is false. The theory of evolution is a theory. And there is a tremendous amount of evidence supporting that theory.
There is no "natural selection". There is just a "theory" about it...
the·o·ry (thÄ“'É™-rÄ“, thîr'Ä“) pronunciation n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-answers.com
Those may be the full range of definitions for the word "theory" but science does not use all of those when describing how it works.
The following definitions are much closer to what science means when it speaks of a scientific theory:
Theory: a 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; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Great question. And it not only applies to the species we call mankind. But what about elephants, tigers, dogs, giraffes, and so forth. I would really love to see the “fossil” trail for every singles species on earth.
Oh - and also an explanation of the “evolutionary step” just before the one that required a male and female for procreation. Which requires genitalia, sexual arousal, desire, sperm, egg, placenta...among other things. An evolutionist cannot and will not answer this question intelligently.