I am going to throw my 2 cents into this How does one primate get the girls in the wild after losing all its fur and becomes weak?
Exactly. And the BELIEF in universal common ancestry cannot be observed, measured, or any mechanism defined. It is a religious opinion, masquerading as 'science!'
Obviously, they don't. And, since there is no evidence that this CAN happen, much less that it DID happen, the scientific mind can only conclude that is is a flawed theory, with no corroborating evidence. The Religious True Believers, however, can defend their beliefs with jihadist zeal.. and they do. But it's not science.
Because while losing his fur his intelligence increased many fold allowing him to be a better provider for the opposite sex, allowing him to live longer, allowing him to have better strategies in how to kill rivals without harming himself in the process, giving him the ability to better manipulate others in the troop for his own advantage.
If we apply that hypothesis test to this thread what we observe are primates flinging feces because other primates have evolved an understanding of the universe. This establishes that evolution is random because both positive and negative mutations can coexist. Those evolutionary mutations only become critical if the primate species faces an environmental change whereby only those primates that understand the environmental change can adapt their behavior to survive whereas those that cannot do not survive.
Other than the observations, measurements and mechanisms that have been defined or course. Just because you hand waive them away and pretend nobody has given them to you, doesn’t change reality.
Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe the girls got the guys by getting hairless. More seriously: Losing fur and gaining sweat led to man being the best distance runners on earth - no animal is better! And, you can't really call us weak when we so thoroughly conquered the entire planet - leaving us attempting to keep other species from going extinct!
Observable data, cited endlessly, which you have clearly overlooked somehow: 1. The claims made by Darwin in 1859 have not borne fruit. The fossil record did not then support him and it does not today after many decades of study and effort. 2. Biologists in laboratories have tried in vain to create new, healthy, viable species by irradiation of bacteria and fruit flies in particular. They have failed spectacularly and repeatedly. 3. Paradigms die very hard. Haeckel's Drawings were discredited 150 years ago but they have continuously been published and promoted to claim that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." It does not. They were fraudulently created and he admitted it. This was not and is not science, it is fraud. Disgraceful. 4. The Miller-Urey Experiment was heralded as "evidence" of abiogenesis. It has since been discredited as the assumptions made and applied have been shown to be erroneous. 5. The Piltdown Man was another fraud. 6. National Geographic Magazine published an earth-shattering "discovery" a few years ago that has since been found to be a fraud as well. Why all this fraud if it's so "factual"? Answer: Because it is not and they are desperate to maintain their incomes and prestige. "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck 7. As I said, all life consists of biochemical reactions and they are so complex and so intricate as to positively prove that they did not originate themselves. Biochemists have DEMONSTRATED that only 1 in 10 to the 77th power possible combinations of a polypeptide 150 amino acid residues in length is functional. What does that say about Titin, in your muscles, with 34,350 amino acid residues, Mr. fmw? Do some math on that and the 5,000 other proteins in your body. Then tell me what protein took over the previous function of the one that supposedly changed into another different and new magic compound via "selection".
False. All the observation supports Darwin. Immaterial. Nature does all kinds of things that humans cannot do. The theory of evolutions isn't about drawings. As I said earlier, evolution is a theory. So is abiogenesis. But it is the best explanation we have. Yes. And? So propose an alternative theory. There is no reasonable alternative at the moment. You must have confused me with someone who thinks nature is simple. It wasn't I.
For someone who claims to know little about science and biochemistry, you express your opinions as if you did know what you claim not to know. "Best explanation" is meaningless. If the theory doesn't fit the observations, you must discard the theory. No "alternative" is necessary. That's how science works, contrary to the emotional outbursts of Darwinists, whom you support without foundation. “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed…..It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University) “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.) “250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.” (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”) “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.) “A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp…..moreover, for the most part these “experts” have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully.” (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician) “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student….have now been debunked.” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London) “Darwin’s evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress…..The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science….I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
Where are your links to your claims? 1. What claims made by Darwin in 1859 have not borne fruit? 2. Elaborate please? 3. Haeckel's Drawings were not discredited as they were just schematics which he exaggerated for emphasis. And as New Scientist points out "Ironically, although Haeckel’s drawings are used only as relics now, modern molecular genetic studies show that his fundamental point – that there are important similarities between different vertebrate embryos – seems less mistaken, even though his diagrams are profoundly wrong" Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...trations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/#ixzz65TrwNcMf 4. The Miller-Urey Experiment was NOT heralded as "evidence" of abiogenesis as that was never the aim of the experiment. The experiment did show that amino acids can be created from simple compounds in conditions theorized to have been present on early Earth. 5. Shattering news! Fakes are sometimes published and quickly proven as frauds by other scientists 6. Shattering news! Fakes are sometimes published and quickly proven as frauds by other scientists. 7. It's statistically impossible to state that anything has a probability of 1 in 10 to the 77th. What do you say about viruses which have 14000 nucleotides in length which are just as living as a human.
Darwin never provided an evolutionary explanation of the origins of man; that you and others attribute that to him is myth. Also myth is the idea that natural selection necessarily leads to increasingly complexity as is so often wrapped into the meaning of the word evolution... that’s not an inherent product of the natural selection process. Darwin’s work was about explaining the process of natural selection, a process that is not limited to biology, but one that can be observed across many disciplines, such as business, science, politics. Humans have been a factor in the natural selection process among a broad range of biological fauna since humans became human; we have not only impacted the natural environment changing the survival factors for species, we have sometimes been the predator (killer of ancient mega fauna) and sometimes the selection mechanism when doing activities such as selective breading of animals. As for observing biological natural selection, there are numerous observed examples in everything from bacteria, insects, birds, and many more that have been documented and reported. Even change among the human species. And, something even tracked and observed recently among the finch populations of the Galapagos Darwin drew upon to illustrate how natural selection contributes to species variation. Darwin’s primary contribution to the idea of evolution, a concept preceding his work, and one applied by paleontologists later, was that some species may have common ancestors. Considering, advances in understanding DNA and being able to do comparative analysis between species, that species might have common ancestors seemed to be reinforced by huge numbers of such comparisons, including the observation the DNA of humans and chimpanzees is over 99% shared. So, we aren’t just anatomically similar, but far more similar than is comfortable to those that deny natural selection has played a role in the diversity of species populating the earth. As for humans, we can see easily change in our biology over the past few hundred years and we are still changing as a species... though we are rapidly approaching having the technology to a greater control over that change. Don’t believe in the process of natural selection? Join the flat earth society; you have something in common.
Look them up yourself. Anything I would provide would be wholly unsatisfactory to you for reasons you would repeat after hearing them from your cohorts, or create anew. A. The fossil record, as cited in some of the quotations I provided and you neglected to mention. B. The Magic Wand of *Selection* is absurd on its face, particularly in view of what we now know about information contained in DNA. Random forces do not create information. Yes indeed they were discredited within a very short period after he produced them. He excused his lies saying "everybody does it." Speaking of exaggerating for emphasis, that is the hoax driving the Climate Change Fraud which proponents push the same way Darwinists push their hoax. "Believe us or you're stupid and your mother dresses you funny. So there!" Tell the world, what WAS "the aim of the experiment" then? I have friends with PhDs in chemistry who dispute everything you said. "Quickly." Darwin - 1859 and still roaring. Haeckel - you still defend his drawings which were reprinted in biology books in this century. Steady State Universe - held sway for centuries as did Phlogisten and Aether Global Warming - "We're all gonna die by 2000!" Global Starvation - The Club of Rome Douglas Axe makes polypeptides for a living. His research shows otherwise. Argue with Douglas Axe. I'm quoting him. You throw your arms up in the air and simply say "NO!" Your strawman offering of viruses "having 14000 nucleotides" is inconsequential as to the functionality of only 1 polypeptide in 10 to the 77th power. Let me give other readers some perspective. 10 to the 50th grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Fifteen of them. Now some hypothetical spaceman would have to find one specially marked grain of sand in 15 solar systems full of sand, on his first and only try. Pretty LOL-ly in the spectrum of Darwinian A>B>C>D nonsense and Magic Wand of Selection doing anything and everything, poof.
My but your argument is so very convincing and original. Congratulations on winning yet another convert to the Richard Dawkins Hate Society through your sterling *scientific* prowess. Now please explain how human hemoglobin defies LeChatelier's Principle to those reading this thread. It should be very easy for someone of your vaunted intellect.
I have knowledge in some areas scientific inquiry, including a fair level of understanding of the principles behind natural selection. I can’t address every the genesis of every aspect of human biology and it’s adaptive value to the human species; there are a lot of answers I don’t have in my own field of inquiry let alone those of other fields which I haven’t studied. In areas I have some level of knowledge, I am always ready to have a discussion. Where I don’t, I am ok to in saying I don’t have the answers (hell,mI have been spending a good deal of time these days trying to better understand the evolution of the study of quantum mechanics over the last century, and in particular understanding the various questions surrounding some of the larger mysteries of physics such as what creates gravity, the specific mechanism of quantum entanglement, how to explain the duality of quantum particles (though just saw a good demonstration that helps in visualizing it), and several other areas of curiosity. That I should be able to be prepared to discuss the “Equilibrium Law” in regard to human hemoglobin, an area I have no expertise to discuss, as it relates to the discussion of natural selection has little to do with the argument I posted...unless you are attempting to lay the groundwork for an ad hominem counter to it, a game I won’t play. If that isn’t your objective, please feel free to enlighten why you would pose that challenge or why you figure it relevant and we will roll from there if possible and practical. In the meantime, are you contesting that the process of natural selected results biological change and variation exhibited in a species or among species? Or, ...
An Taibhse I would give up if I were you (I have). Chem Engineer has a rigidly fixed position on this issue. If Chem can't counter a point you raised in an attempt to debate this topic he? will either; a) avoid answering the question; or b) respond with an insult. And the problem is insurmountable. He insists on criticizing what is almost universally accepted as a valid scientific theory without ever once offering a countervailing empirically testable scientific theory of his own to replace it. And he also won't out-rightly state that his position is that 'God created the universe XXX years ago' because by doing so he clarifies that his opposition to evolution as a scientific theory is in fact largely based on religious objections. So he restricts himself to sniping at what he imagines are critical flaws in the theory of evolution with offering any positive alternatives of his own. This whole thread basically belongs in the Religion Section not the Science Section.
Both Chem and Usfan are effectively SPAMMING the Science forum with debunked theist creationism drivel.
Re: The false narrative: Creation is religion! Atheism is science! My rebuttal: 1. There is a Reality.. either, The universe is God made The universe is godless 2. Science is a method of discovery, to see which of these possibilities is most likely. It can only sort facts. It cannot conclude opinions. 3. Science is NOT anti-God, or anti-creation, like the pseudoscience ideologues like to portray it. 4. Opinions and beliefs, about these possibilities are not facts, or 'settled science!' They are personal conclusions, based on the information (or lack thereof) on hand. 5. Dogmatically declaring YOUR beliefs as 'proven fact!', only reveals indoctrination and/or bigotry. They are not facts, but beliefs. 6. ANY belief/opinion about origins is inherently a religio/philosophical issue. Science can only plug the facts into either model, to see which fits better. 7. Excluding the possibility of creation by labeling it 'religion!', while labeling atheistic naturalism. 'Science!' is just progressive propaganda. 8. Lobbying to censor creationism as 'religion!', while pushing atheistic naturalism as 'science!', is just religious bigotry, promoting YOUR beliefs, and censoring the competition.
So then, YOUR 'religious objections' are based in a belief in atheistic naturalism, with no possibility of a Creator.. Pot, kettle, black? How do you posit, scientifically, the origins of the universe and life? Random chance? Infinite possibility = 'it happened!'? What facts for common ancestry, abiogenesis, and other foundational beliefs for your model do you have? Why is that 'science!', but positing a Creator is 'religion!'? ..progressive indoctrinees..
My minor in college was zoology and biochemistry was one of my courses. I'm not completely ignorant on the subject. I was simply deferring to your superior experience. You have an opinion. Why can't I have one? The theory does fit the observations. That is why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports it. I didn't say an alternative was necessary. I said that there is no alternative and, if you reject the theory, you should offer up an alternative. I suspect that evolutionary phenomena take more than 40 years to become evident. As I said it is a theory that offers an explanation for what we observe. It may be wrong. So far, most scientists think it is right. So I side with them. Scientists shouldn't go about teaching that evolution is more than a theory. I agree with him. He is also free to propose an alternative theory. Nobody suggests that it is simple What percentage of scientists consider evolution to be wrong? Is it significant? I don't know. I ask. I don't think the theory is about stories either. It is nothing more than a reasonable explanation for what we encounter. This fellow is also free to propose an alternative. Another complainer without an alternative. You have a lot of bashers. I will ignore them until they provide a better idea.
You initiated thee ad hominem attack by claiming I am a member of the "flat earth society." Anyone who does not march in Darwinist Lockstep is so accused by you and yours. It is hateful. It is reprehensible. It is dishonest. But you love doing it. Now please join my Ignore List as I can see you are not interested in civil discourse with those you deem far beneath you. ciao
I'm not an atheist. How do you posit, scientifically, the origins of the universe and life? Random chance? Infinite possibility = 'it happened!'? What facts for common ancestry, abiogenesis, and other foundational beliefs for your model do you have? Why is that 'science!', but positing a Creator is 'religion!'? ..progressive indoctrinees.. [/QUOTE] The origins of the universe are a matter of open debate, scientists currently cannot and may well never be able to answer that question 'what came before the big bang'. The problem as I stated with creationism in the form of a fully developed 6000 year old universe is simply that it is impossible to refute or confirm using science and is therefore does NOT fall within the remit of science.
Again and again you ask for "an alternative." You do not seem to understand that science does NOT work that way. It does NOT "require an explanation." Example: Explain why masses attract each other, and how they "know" how much the other weighs and how far away it is. Example: Explain a naturalistic mechanism for the Big Bang, that is plausible and convincing, and don't try the "quantum vacuum explosion" nonsense. You cite "the scientific community" "overwhelmingly" supporting Darwinism. I say again, science does NOT work by consensus. The scientific community originally thought the universe was eternal and unchanging. It is not alone in being amazingly "self correcting." EVERYTHING ALIVE is self correcting. Plants, animals, and bacteria. Being self-correcting is no big deal. It's normal. Christians too are self-correcting. I know this takes a lot of air out of atheist and Darwinist balloons but......
