We have on the one hand, a group of people claiming that they do not have all the answers, but enough evidence to show that something is likely to be true, therefore it could never have happened any different way and that means your religious way is wrong. ... blah blah blah ...
Hmm, you have anything to add to this discussion or are you just going to pose ignorant commentary from the sidelines?
RIGHT... A BLOG...
If I wanted to know what Tom Cruz was up to I would read a blog, but for scientific knowledge a different medium is necessarily.
Except this blog, and the included article, belongs to Allen MacNeill, a senior lecturer, in biology, at Cornell university (
click here).
You really should get into the habit of researching before typing.
If there was "proof" this conversation would be redundant; however there is not any proof, only evidence, and if a scientist were to try to make a study on attempting to prove creation he would not get be able to get grant money or published by the scientific community because of the stigma.
Umm, you just demonstrated how you do not understand science there Willy. There is no "proof" in science, that's mathematics. But, what you are doing is making a play on words. Your definition of "proof" is actually science's definition for "evidence." Where's the proof of macroevolution? Well, the evidence of an instance in which macroevolution occurs is proof and the links provided provide that evidence.
Science is about the evidence, an examination of such to theorize on the balance of evidence.
A theory is invalid if one fragment of evidence conflicts with the theory.
Yes, just one. There are literally millions in evidence, and yet if even one bit of evidence conflicts with the theory, it is not a valid theory. So, where's that one little bit of evidence you can present to the table that would invalidate the theory of macroevolution?
Answer: as far as we know, it doesn't exist.
And here's the other problem with your comments. Evolution is both theory AND fact
(which I discussed many time previously in this forum). As well, macroevolution is both theory AND fact. The theory is the collective examination of all evidence pertaining to macroevolution, inclusive of postulation on predicted behaviors. It is fact because the evidence itself is a physical, biological demonstration of macroevolution. It is witnessed, indisputable. There it is.
I.e., the facts are the evidentiary instances, the theory encompasses all instances and that which has not yet been evidenced, but is otherwise anticipated based on the behavior of the collective evidence.
In contrast, Creationism has no evidence, no proof. It doesn't even have a theory. It's just a claim, such as someone claiming there are invisible fairies, dwarves, elves or balrogs with whips. No supporting evidence, no proof, no theory... just something pulled out of a hairy butts and thrust onto the pages of books. Add in some believers and you have a Tolkien convention.
Or, in your case, Sunday school.
if a scientist wanted grant money to attempt to prove evolution all the grant money and publishers would be available, not to mention he/she would not run the risk of being forever Ostracized by the scientific community.
If a scientist wanted grant money to attempt to prove evolution, he would be called a quack and not obtain a penny... because you don't go around "proving" anything in science, you instead try to disprove it. That's the basis to scientific examination. Old theories are trumped by new theories. And if you just so happened to disprove an old theory, you get to label the new theory. Now how cool is that?!?
See, this is your misunderstanding here Willy. Scientists are continuously trying to find fault in each other's work. It's not a collaboration, nor a collective, and it's definitely not a massive conspiracy against non-believers. It's a damn warzone and scientists want it that way. They want to throw their theories into a peer-reviewed journals and have a hundred thousand other scientists try to destroy their theory. Because if a theory survives that sort of assault, it becomes tempered, turns into a
In contrast, Creationists are adherents, refusing other considerations and working together to defend their belief, regardless of the lack of supporting evidence.
You see, I can sit here and say, "Creationism is possible" but a creationist would not say, "evolution is possible." Anyway, comparing Creationism to evolution is an age-old error. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, it has to do with change. The proper scientific equivalent is abiogenesis.
Yes because the scientific community is totally open minded to the idea of creation (sarcasm)...
There are a multitude of creation myths, not merely your religion's version. But a myth is just that, a story without evidence. There's nothing to research, nothing to examine, no evidence. Just a shared, but otherwise unfounded, opinion.
As to belief, over 30% of all scientists believe in some sort of god. As to the notion of the scientific community and religion, that's what theology is about and yes, they receive grants to research religion, creationism, etc.
The biggest issue of the model of evolution is it cannot and does not even attempt to explain origin. How exactly can you say evolution is the correct theory when it cannot explain how RNA and DNA developed? How did non-life become life?
Right, that's the field of abiogenesis. Go look it up.
For the most important questions the model is irrelevant and breaks down every time.
You are incorrect. They have already created life out of non-life, thus demonstrating the viability of at least one abiogenesis theory.
Who cares if an ape can develop into a slightly smarter ape... What about the real questions about the origin of life.
The
real questions? About the
real questions about molecular rearrangement? How about the
real questions pertaining to macroeconomics? Or perhaps the
real questions on quantum mechanics?
Trying to give something else more relevance by adding in the word, "real" is a cute dance, but silly. Evolution pertains to the study of evolution, just as thermodynamics pertains to the relation of heat to work and other energy forms. Once again, what you're looking for is abiogenesis.
Did we get this clarified yet? Abiogenesis.
RNA is a complex machine designed for the goal for reproducing genetic material. Like any complex machine if you take out or warp any part, it ceases to function for its intended purpose. Evolution cannot explain this because for it to have evolved it would have had to been able to function at a simpler design. At some point you will always hit that point of non-function where adapting is not possible because there is not any function to adapt.
Umm, Willy, you really need to stop reading that crap written by people with limited education in biology. If you want, I could go into detail about this in a different thread, but please let me clarify that what you just said up there is just plain ... umm ... crap and also has nothing to do with this topic of macroevolution & microevolution.
