Santorum: Satan is working on the USA
- Thread starter SavannahDare
- Start date
- Status
but as a regular-necked creature, why did it need the valves and the blood-vessel net? unless evolution had a plan to create a creature with a long neck, there is NO NEED for these two physiological developments. You are arguing as if evolution knows what's going on. Evolution cannot "know".....
sorry.... i'm new here... have not had the pleasure of being a part of one of these epic evolution threads beforeI certainly never expected this thread to turn into one.
No biggee. You're just beating the same dead horse as the folks before you.sorry.... i'm new here... have not had the pleasure of being a part of one of these epic evolution threads before
Just another something I was thinking about this morning. Evolution is supposed to make small advancements that benefit the creature AT THE TIME OF THE ADVANCEMENT.... not a million years down the road. (otherwise, evolution is working as if it has a plan) If they are "nonviable", evolution does away with the changes. (That is from one of your own posts, CBI) Why did man lose his hair? We are alleged to be descended from a common ape ancestor. All the other apes have hair. We do not. Of course, at this point in time, we don't need it. We have homes and clothes and all that. But, when we first "evolved" our lack-of-hair, what evolutionary purpose did it serve. And if it didn't serve one (nonviable), why did we lose the hair? If it did serve a purpose, why did we have to find some covering to compensate for its loss?
Occam's Razor says, in essence, that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones. Where ID fails is on the "other things being equal" front. Because ID makes no predictions, it has no falsifiability, and no scientific value.
It is far worse for a hypothesis to make no predictions, which is the case for "Intelligent Design." Remember he was writing in the 19th century, before light bulbs, the paper clip, or the nutcracker. Think about that for a minute. A lot of paleontological evidence unavailable to Darwin has since been found, and in every case, has conformed to the predictions of the theory. In no case have modern forms appeared "out of order" in older rock strata, and the patterns of feature development have been consistent with a gradual increase in complexity. It is not a failing of the detective if a killer, instead of leaving his wallet at the scene of the crime with a signed confession, he only leaves fingerprints on the murder weapon, and is seen leaving the scene covered in blood.
then why bring it up before if you believed them "unequal"?
What do light bulbs and the paper clip have to do with anything? Darwin said there should be practically infinite evidence of transitional forms.... which seems logical if you take into account that we are talking about minor changes over millions of years.... we should find evidence that bombardier beetle at one time did only have depressions rather than chambers. We should find a giraffe with a much shorter neck but still evidence that it had the valves and vessel net. We do not have those things. We have fossils in the record that COULD support evolution. They show what MIGHT BE transitional forms, but we do not have the "finely graduated organic chain" that Darwin said we should have. And yes, it WAS in the 19th century..... you'd think we could have come up with some harder evidence in that many years.
Furthermore, just because something is not scientifically testable does not prove its falsehood. Prove to me scientifically that Lincoln was the 16th president.
and we're back to you not comprehending what a scientific theory is. calling evolution a "theory not a fact" is meaningless and in no way changes the scientific basis of evolutionary biology. CBI explained the it earlier in the thread.
no one has said that your lack of understanding "proves" evolution. it is just that, a lack of understanding. evolution is supported by massive amounts of evidence compiled over many years and by many different people.
Last edited:
There will necessarily be some variance in neck length in the giraffe population. Let's assume that longer necks confer some sort of advantage to a giraffe, perhaps by allowing them to exploit more resources, or to see predators better. It really doesn't matter why, and advantage usually involves tradeoffs, some of which are not obvious. However, there is no plan, no intentionality. Given variance and selection pressure, longer-necked giraffes will be more common than shorter-necked giraffes, but only up to a point. An excessively long neck might create problems, such as insufficient blood flow to the head. However, given that giraffes have already developed marginally longer necks, there would now be selection pressure for beneficial mutations in the heart and blood vessels. It might take millions of years for such a mutation to occur, or it might have occurred several times, but the individual carrying it happened to die before spreading it. There are no guarantees. But at some point, mutations occurred that strengthened the giraffe's circulatory system in such a way that it complemented the previous neck elongations, and provided support for even more neck elongations. Also, it is important to note that mutations in the circulatory system need not be all-or-nothing. They can improve incrementally as well.
First, even if I personally, or science in general, does not have a ready answer to the evolutionary purpose of some mutation, does not mean that it could not have had selection pressure for it.
Second, it is believed that around the time hominid hair began to diminish, we were savanna hunters. We were not the largest, strongest, or fastest of hunters, but we were intelligent, and had endurance. The ability to efficiently cool oneself would have been advantageous, so there would have been selection pressure for less body fur, and increasingly effective sweat glands. Interesting read: NYT: The Human Body Is Built for Distance
It's not so much about proving falsehood, as there's no value in exploring claims that are unscientific. The proposition that Lincoln was the 16th president does make falsifiable predictions, such as the historical record will include references to Lincoln being the 16th president. In the absence of a credible competing proposition, that historical record will be generally accepted, though there may be fringe opinions that records and memories may have been falsified, or due to some quirk of circumstance, someone else was president for a brief time that didn't "count." Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, the claim that Lincoln was the 16th president is not particularly extraordinary, and the evidence for Lincoln being the 16th president is strong. Also, get real.
Last edited:
you don't prove anything scientifically. you develop a testable hypothesis and then you collect evidence in an attempt to falsify that hypothesis. if that evidence fails to falsify the hypothesis over time as more and more evidence is collected you work towards a "theory". it is a very long and involved process.
link to the wikipedia entry about scientific theory
Last edited:
It's clearly the work of Satan.I certainly never expected this thread to turn into one.
when have i said it is above reproach? proponents of ID are more than welcome to conduct research in support of their hypothesis. they are welcome to conduct research that casts doubt on evolutionary biology. they have not done neither.
according to your model here, the valves and vessel net would have had to occur at the same time. probability would suggest otherwise. not to mention, we aren't talking about a minor adaptation here. We are talking about an additional system within the giraffe. there were valves added... there was a net of blood vessel added. this is not the same thing as elongated beaks (which the birds already had) or longer hair on a dog.
your talking about historical evidence.... not scientific evidence. give me some scientific proof.
when was the last time anybody researching evolution attempted to "falsify" the theory? it has reached the point that it is unquestioned. ID is an attempt to "falsify" the data. it is relatively new and has been met with extreme prejudice. you, yourself, will not even consider it, because you do not want to reach the conclusion that there could be a "designer". I understand where you're coming from, but just because your worldview does not allow you to consider something greater than yourself does not mean it does not exist.
some are doing these things.... and are being fired from their jobs for conducting such research.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/06/israel-scientist-sacked-evolution-climate
http://www.employmentattorneysanjos...-allegedly-fired-for-questioning-darwin.shtml
http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2010/10/chief-scientist-questioned-evolution-theory-fired/
if we aren't allowed to question evolution, it becomes a religion.... not science
- Status
Latest threads
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 8
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
