|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro),
556
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: What are the standards of a theory?
[Re: capanno]
#110162
02/01/07 11:24
02/01/07 11:24
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Its not a fact that they can produce something that is not their kind.
The evolution doesn't state this, they don't 'produce', but evolve .. something substantially different. If you adapt often enough a species will change (e.a. incompatible with their original species), that's the basic idea.
Quote:
Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science."
-I.L. Cohen
Which is a funny quote considered the evidence there is, when did Cohen say this by the way? I can only find this quote on these pro-christian propaganda sites like answeringgenesis.org.
Still, I understand where these kind of quotes come from since supposedly even Darwin himself once said;
Quote:
Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter, regarding the concluding chapters of his The Origin of the Species. Quoted in "John Lofton's Journal," The Washington Times, February 8, 1984.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
That was back in 1858 though. 
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: What are the standards of a theory?
[Re: PHeMoX]
#110163
02/01/07 11:40
02/01/07 11:40
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011 South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
The evolution doesn't state this, they don't 'produce', but evolve .. something substantially different. If you adapt often enough a species will change (e.a. incompatible with their original species), that's the basic idea.
With that logic, you might as well say by losing a little money over a looong period of time, you will become rich. You obviously don't know what happens when a species 'adapts'. I recommend you learn some biology 101.
|
|
|
Re: What are the standards of a theory?
[Re: PHeMoX]
#110167
02/01/07 12:55
02/01/07 12:55
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011 South Africa
capanno
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,011
South Africa
|
Quote:
If you have a mutation that's neutral but it produced an error in duplicating information
Examples?
Quote:
and thát information mutates even more than in essence you've got added information already.
How can a scramble of information add new info?
Quote:
In a way information can be like molded clay, hence a mutation can change but doesn't necesarrily have to substract information at all ánd it can even add information because it's molded clay that's able to expand or copy itself.
Nope. Its not like clay, its a very fragile combination of genes. You have to understand the maths involved. Darwin's original idea for evolution was proven wrong shortly after he came up with it. he said that any beneficial mutation, no matter how small, will be kept in the population. The chance of even a benificial mutation surviving is very small, due to the population growth. A mistake can be corrected. So a small mutation, even a neutral one like you said, is not likely to survive. This and other calculations pointed out Darwin's complete twisted understanding of chance. Thats why allot of 'scientists' are now joining the crowd that say that evolution must have happened in large steps, because slow gradual mutations and natural selection does absolutely nothing for them. Large mutations are fatal, and small ones wont survive. And still, these mutations are not what neo darwinians need. They need new info, not scrambled info.
You can copy, reverse, expand, twist, divide, scramble your DNA, you wont add new info. Because of Darwin's mistake about how mutations survive, the neo darwinian theory was invented in the 1950s, trying to accommodate new findings. It failed, just like the great wall of china failed to keep chuck norris out.
|
|
|
Re: What are the standards of a theory?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#110169
02/03/07 14:42
02/03/07 14:42
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Humanity took some thousand years to get rid of questions such as :
Why does it happen ? What is the " essence " of ... ? Is there a goal ?
This is an excellent point. Unfortunately I think many poeple cant understand it.
|
|
|
Re: What are the standards of a theory?
[Re: AlbertoT]
#110171
02/06/07 11:30
02/06/07 11:30
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815 Finland
Inestical
Rabbit Developer
|
Rabbit Developer
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,815
Finland
|
for me;
theory is something you believe something is, but you cannot prove it, or you havn't experienced it.
If you speak theoritically, you speak about something not proven in any way, or in that specific way and is not experienced.
Falsing theory requires proves against it, or experiences against it. Proclaiming another theory does not falsify the other theory.
Conclusion: Theory is an explanation of something not experienced or proved.
"Yesterday was once today's tomorrow."
|
|
|
|