Confused about evolution

Originally posted by frogstomp
Including the 3 laws of motion?

Newton's first Law, the Law of Linear Momentum, is an incorrect approximation of the Law of Relativistic Linear Momentum which is described here:

http://www.kineticbooks.com/physics/17467/17508/sp.html

There is also a relativistic form of Newton's Second Law. Newton's Second Law is again an approximation of the relativistic version. The relativistic version is

F is defined as dp/dt

with p defined by the Law of Relativistic Linear Momentum.

I don't know if Newton's Third Law has been shown to be false in any respect as the other two were.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Including the 3 laws of motion?

F=d(mV)/dt =m dV/dt +Vdm/dt=ma+Vdm/dt still works for m as a variable

in special relativity m varies at the rate of 1/ (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

lol the brackets

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Can you elaborate?

The acceptance of evolution marked a major revolution in Biology. Nature as a whole is described as being continuous and self-propogating. For instance, let's take taxonomy. All living things were separated according to similar traits but considered separate creations under the old view. Now the hierarchy of classification is more or less the tree of life, or the path which evolution has taken. If you reject evolution, you reject or seriously modify the work of most modern taxonomists. We find similar implementations of the continuity of nature brought on by evolution in genetics, and so forth.

True, you can reject evolution and still have the observations that we do. However, you then throw out the bulk of explanatory power and the "meat" of biology. All that is left is some inexplicable, or not yet explained observations. I think this is one of the major reasons why alternatives are strongly opposed.

Originally posted by Phledos
We can look at the rock layers or Geographic Time Eras.

Heres one:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html

This is very interesting.

It shows that at the end of the Precambrian Time Era, Life just exploded onto the scene. (Suggesting Creation.)

If you look before that time, all you will find is small bacteria. Now you may say, 'Well t ...[text shortened]... eas animals have been found longer before that, and plants even longer again.

Bye from Tim 🙂

Humans bones have only been found for the last 6000 years?

Where the hell do you get this crap from?

Originally posted by yousers
The acceptance of evolution marked a major revolution in Biology. Nature as a whole is described as being continuous and self-propogating. For instance, let's take taxonomy. All living things were separated according to similar traits b ...[text shortened]... is one of the major reasons why alternatives are strongly opposed.

Tell me, if I were to say I agree that life evolves, yet does not do
so to the degree that has life changing so dramatically as going
from a blind worm to a housefly with compound eyes. How does
that change anything you have said? I can agree that if you take
a rabbit and place it in several different climates under a variety
of conditions that what will happen after several generations are
rabbits best suited for those environments will be there thriving
and those that are not, will not be. Accepting that does not mean
that I can accept a blind worm over time turning into a horsefly
with compound eyes.
Kelly

Originally posted by yousers
I think this is one of the major reasons why alternatives are strongly opposed.

It is perhaps the major reason that articles of faith are not really alternatives. They make no real effort to explain these masses of data.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
It is perhaps the major reason that articles of faith are not really alternatives. They make no real effort to explain these masses of data.

precisely. faith is not a superhighway to answers. it is an exit ramp to irrationality (and indefensible claims).

Originally posted by KellyJay
Tell me, if I were to say I agree that life evolves, yet does not do
so to the degree that has life changing so dramatically as going
from a blind worm to a housefly with compound eyes. How does
that change anything you have said? I can agree that if you take
a rabbit and place it in several different climates under a variety
of conditions that what wi ...[text shortened]...
that I can accept a blind worm over time turning into a horsefly
with compound eyes.
Kelly

Evolution attempts to explain the classification system by postulating that macro-evolution HAS occurred. In order to draw the lines of the tree, which represent descent from a common ancestor, the lower forms must evolve from the higher forms. This includes all of the dramatic changes as well as the changes among species that you and I accept. If you introduce discontinuity at any point (i.e. you deny the evolution of compound eyes), you cut that continuous lineage and our evolutionary explanation is shredded. In order to gain that simple explanation that biologists want, one must carry the evolutionary view to every remote branch of the tree of life. Otherwise, we are no further than when we started.
Similarly, we cannot, with our current knowledge, explain the origins of the genotypes of species in any simple way without claiming that they have evolved from a common source.
Evolution is strongly defended because it simplifies things immensly and it provides a vehicle for explanation. It is coherent and elegant, so it is accepted as true within science. But is it really true?....that depends on your definition of truth.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Accepting that does not mean
that I can accept a blind worm over time turning into a horsefly
with compound eyes.
Kelly

All flies metamorphose from worms (although I think the word worm is not technically correct). I'm sorry I cannot tell you how many are blind as larvae, but have eyes as winged creatures. It seems reasonable to expect that some may be.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
All flies metamorphose from worms (although I think the word worm is not technically correct). I'm sorry I cannot tell you how many are blind as larvae, but have eyes as winged creatures. It seems reasonable to expect that some may be.

I was thinking about some time early in the mythical evolutionary
time line, when there wasn't any flies, but good point. Odd isn't it
that we have sexes, asexual creatures, larva, eggs, we have live
births, cells splitting, winged creatures, and so on with all of them
supposedly coming from a single evolutionary line, that at one
time had everything supposedly coming from the same source
something akin to a single cell creature?
Kelly

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Please stop calling Creationism a theory. You are doing tremendous violence to the language.

It must be accepted by the scientific establishment to earn the name theory. Even if the Creationists' "research" could be accepted as having merit (instead of so easily refuted by just about anyone who passed Biology 101), it remains no more than a hypothesis ...[text shortened]... ts for the great masses of data (the facts) that has accumulated through scientific observation.

Big words and illogical thinking does not make the theory of evolution true. You may confuse many, into believing so, but not all.

If you want to be correct, you must look at both sides, THOROUGHLY, and then side with the most logical.

Now evolution is very illogical to me, so I will side with creation because it IS logical to believe we were created. (Maybe we can debate 'Who?'😉 but it is more logical.

Originally posted by Phledos
Big words and illogical thinking does not make the theory of evolution true. You may confuse many, into believing so, but not all.

If you want to be correct, you must look at both sides, THOROUGHLY, and then side with the most logical.

Now evolution is very illogical to me, so I will side with creation because it IS logical to believe we were created. (Maybe we can debate 'Who?'😉 but it is more logical.

Why look at both sides? You can just look at one side and see if it
correct or not, looking at evolution and finding it false does not mean
that creation is true, if you find evolution false, it is false. That does
not by default make creation true. Again, evolution is a process and
creation is an event, they are not even the same thing.
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How do you know this?

Well what do you think?

Mutants or mutations do not do anyone any good. The theory of evolution pushes the human life cycle forward. (Enhancing)

If mutations were a basis for evolution then they are not doing their job, because they arnt pushing the human race forward at all.

Cancers kill people, they do not give people a new ability.

Bye

Originally posted by frogstomp
by the sheer weight of the evidence for it lol

Ha ha. 🙂

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
A law is not something that is definite. For example, Newton's Laws were shown to be wrong by Einstein.

Perhaps does that then mean that your 'so called law' of evolution is possibly incorrect too, then.

Check it out.