|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78100
06/24/06 04:44
06/24/06 04:44
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with modern evolution!
Well, I dont think this is accurate... this is like saying Newtonian physics have nothing to do with modern physics.
Of course darwin made some mistakes, its hard when you are creating a totally new field of science. And poeple can sit around and point out some errors and therefore expect everyone to assume he was wong about everything? Darwin's ideas have certainly been modified greawtly. he was working 150 years ago, so obviously we have learned some more things since then...but wihtout him we still would be able to make sense of it.
And as I said a million times, if you havent read Darwin, you cant really discuss his ideas intelligently, despite what crap you find on creationist websites.
I've read quite a bit of Darwin mat. Have you? Newtonian physics is a bad example. Newton created formula's to describe motion that are extremely useful, in fact he didnt really get anyhting wrong. Except gravity, which we still don't understand. Newtonian physics is extremely useful for predicting things on earth.
Darwin on the other hand, totally missed a hell of a lot. Can't blame him though, anyone would have. Smart tend to have smart babies, tall people have tall kids, why wouldn't you think that inheritance was as basic and straightforward as he did? So yeah, Everything irish farmer pointed out is pretty much true. However, you are correct that because of his ideas evolutionary biology is a lot stronger then it would have been otherwise (obviously someone else would come up with the idea). Religious controls are a lot weaker nowadays, a lot because a more signifigant number of people don't believe everything they read in the bible, and despite that fact that i dont care if evolution is true or not, i think EVERYONE can agree that less church control is good. Theres a name for the era where church control was near total, the Dark Ages. So yeah, because we have nobody forbidding us from tinkering with what makes life go, and because people were inspired to figure out what makes us go to find the origin of life - It gives us things like stem cell research, gene therapy, prediction of disorders...
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
#78101
06/24/06 05:07
06/24/06 05:07
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
 Yea.. I was waiting for someone to say comparing Charles Darwin's work to Isaac Newton's was a bad example.. as Newton's work delved into advanced mathematic calculation and experimentation in order to come up with his laws.. ( laws and many very instrumental calculations). I think the only similarity is that both layed the foundation for future exploration of the field. But Newton had alot more tangible an inquiry to answer to, in all fairness. I don't blame Darwin for his partially factual but highly hypothetical findings, I simply think it shouldnt be construed as the same invariable fact that most of Newton's work is, barring what he couldnt possibly work out accurately.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: ICEman]
#78102
06/24/06 05:12
06/24/06 05:12
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I think the problem is that Matt thinks that when I say, "The scientific community is quick to admit Darwin was wrong," he thinks I'm saying that the scientific community rejects evolution. They don't, they just know that darwin didn't understand how it [supposedly] works....at all.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
#78103
06/24/06 07:04
06/24/06 07:04
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Newtonian physics is extremely useful for predicting things on earth.
Yes, and so is Darwinian evolution. He predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and he was right. He predicted that intermediate forms between species would be found, and he was right.
Darwin's theories gave us an understanding of how species form, how traits that seem almost miraculous, like the patterning on certain animals, could have developed naturally.
He was the first to understand how isolation and physical boundaries can force populations to speciate.
Darwin is considered the greatest scientists of the 19th century, and one of the greatest and most important of all time. Like Newton, he created a new kind of science.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#78104
06/24/06 22:37
06/24/06 22:37
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Yes, and so is Darwinian evolution. He predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and he was right. He predicted that intermediate forms between species would be found, and he was right.
We assumed an age for the earliest humans, and so when we found early human bones, we knew they were the earliest because we had already assumed an age for them. Great.
There are no intermediate forms. How many times do we have to go through this? Its call the "paleontologists trade secret" for a reason.
Quote:
Darwin's theories gave us an understanding of how species form
Life develops because of DNA. After conceptions, humans don't mutate from a single cell into a full grown human. We develop according to a complex schematic (our DNA). So our understanding of DNA, not evolution, tells us how animals develop. Evolution just tries to figure out what we used to develop into. Even then, science can't agree on one solid tree, and that means there is no solid tree. Its all subjective. Thus it isn't science and we're wasting our time trying to figure it out.
This is a tautology anyway. Darwin said, without any reproducable evidence, that animals evolved (it was based on observations, but he never actually saw an animal evolve). So therefore, he gave us a way to understand the evolution of species. That's like saying, "The sun is made from the laughter of children. So now I've explained how the sun is made out of the laughter of children." It begs the question of whether or not I was right in the first place. In fact, assuming evolution is true, even without being able to reproduce it, is very limiting. Evolution limits science, it puts all of biology through a filter, and a false one at that.
Quote:
how traits that seem almost miraculous, like the patterning on certain animals, could have developed naturally.
Which is why he said evolution couldn't explain the eye, of course.
Quote:
He was the first to understand how isolation and physical boundaries can force populations to speciate.
He was the first to postulate that isolated organisms speciation, but he misunderstood how it happened.
Quote:
Darwin is considered the greatest scientists of the 19th century, and one of the greatest and most important of all time. Like Newton, he created a new kind of science.
He's an icon, nothing more. His theory should have died once we figured out most of his guesses about evolution were incorrect, but he finally gave atheists a reason to feel smart, so they wouldn't let the theory die that easily. 
I recommend anyone who's interested read this dissection of some of Gould's literature.
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/24/06 22:53.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78105
06/24/06 23:13
06/24/06 23:13
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
There are no intermediate forms
Yes there are. We have shown you mnay examnples. If you choose not accept these forms you are wrong, and dont expect anyone in the scientific community to take your seriously.
How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who wont accept reality? It impossible to explain to a crack pot why he is wrong, because he isnt interested in facts, only his interpretation of reality.
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78108
06/25/06 17:12
06/25/06 17:12
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
We assumed an age for the earliest humans, and so when we found early human bones, we knew they were the earliest because we had already assumed an age for them. Great.
There are no intermediate forms. How many times do we have to go through this? Its call the "paleontologists trade secret" for a reason.
This is so not true, and I'm quite sure you haven't met or spoke to any paleontologist nor do you seem to have much knowledge about paleontology at all.
You claim they make stuff up, well then, prove it! There is no circular reasoning involved like you claim, yes they make use of indirect evidence sometimes, but that's not circular reasoning at all.
And like pointed out before there definately are intermediate forms, but you don't seem to like it for some reason.
Quote:
This is a tautology anyway. Darwin said, without any reproducable evidence, that animals evolved (it was based on observations, but he never actually saw an animal evolve). So therefore, he gave us a way to understand the evolution of species. That's like saying, "The sun is made from the laughter of children. So now I've explained how the sun is made out of the laughter of children." It begs the question of whether or not I was right in the first place.
You've misunderstood the observation-part here. He only witnissed natural selection, survival of the fittest and as a result of this he saw speciation around him. He didn't even had a full theory before he witnissed this. By the way, believing in your own theory when evidence shows you are at least on the right track, seems perfectly okey to me.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Things evolution can't explain
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78109
06/25/06 18:06
06/25/06 18:06
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.
Tese were faked!!11 Or, they just look similar, but you tell me a animal cn grow a arms and not use them too? IT WOULD DIE!!11 Animals cant survuve with transitional forms, so you whole thoery is lies!!1. I have a PHD in biolology!!
|
|
|
|
