Someone please explain evolution to me

Originally posted by powershaker
That measurement is wrong. No one can prove within astronomical certainty that it is that old. I think you might want to research how they measure something's age in science. Pretty much a sham. Go to "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and it will answer all your questions. Even more questions than you're asking me right now. Read that book and t l say, "WOW!" You just might find salvation through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 🙂

Go get yourself an education sonny.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look, I'm going to say this REALLY slowly for you.

Life has existed on earth for 4,000,000,000 years. 100 years represents 0.0000025% of that time. Pretty short, huh? Also, as I've stated over and over again, solely for your benefit Hal, evolution would be expected to happen slower when most niches in the world are full (like now, as opposed to af ...[text shortened]... lenia should be good viewing considering the damage we're doing to the planet right now.

It's amazing how well the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium analysis I use in macroeconomics fits with macroevolution.

Both have micro- foundations.
Both move from steady state to steady state via exogenous shocks.
Both fully endogenous the constraints and maximands of the agents.

Very cool

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look, I'm going to say this REALLY slowly for you.

Life has existed on earth for 4,000,000,000 years. 100 years represents 0.0000025% of that time. Pretty short, huh? Also, as I've stated over and over again, solely for your benefit Hal, evolution would be expected to happen slower when most niches in the world are full (like now, as opposed to af ...[text shortened]... lenia should be good viewing considering the damage we're doing to the planet right now.

Absolutely, but don't you get it? You're trying to explain why the TOE can never be classified as an observable phenomenon; ergo it should be relegated to philosophy textbooks and not flaunted as scientific fact.

Microevolution - scientifically verifiable but seems to hit genetic barriers when attempting major change.

All animal life came from one single-celled organism - philosophy/religion.

Originally posted by Halitose
Absolutely, but don't you get it? You're trying to explain why the TOE can never be classified as an observable phenomenon; ergo it should be relegated to philosophy textbooks and not flaunted as scientific fact.

Microevolution - scientifically verifiable but seems to hit genetic barriers when attempting major change.

All animal life came from one single-celled organism - philosophy/religion.

Nope. We have the fossil record, no matter how incomplete. Also, of course, the Theory provides a highly parsimonious (because it only rests on the principles that (A) the earth is not homogeneous, (B) mutation occurs, some of which are beneficial, some harmfull, and (C) beneficial mutations confer reproductive advantage), explaination of WHY and HOW things are the way they are. It can also be used to make predictions, like we'll lose the war against microbes, MRSA will take care of that. It can predict that you can put a very harsh toxin of choice onto the soil, but eventually, something will grow there. It explains a prediction that I could make about species abundance and diversity increasing immediately (within 100,000 years) after a mass extinction event.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Go get yourself an education sonny.

Maybe you can blame the fact that you are lost and confused on your education.:'(

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope. We have the fossil record, no matter how incomplete. Also, of course, the Theory provides a highly parsimonious (because it only rests on the principles that (A) the earth is not homogeneous, (B) mutation occurs, some of which are beneficial, some harmfull, and (C) beneficial mutations confer reproductive advantage), explaination of WHY and HOW ...[text shortened]... ance and diversity increasing immediately (within 100,000 years) after a mass extinction event.

I suggest you read "Darwin's black box."

Originally posted by dj2becker
Maybe you can blame the fact that you are lost and confused on your education.:'(

I blame it on reading your crap!

Originally posted by dj2becker
I suggest you read "Darwin's black box."

Behe is writing a polemic on a subject that he knows little about, misrepresents, and has little business sticking his nose in until he actually LEARNS THE TOPIC. Even his own faculty members at the university he teaches at disown him on this topic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Behe is writing a polemic on a subject that he knows little about, misrepresents, and has little business sticking his nose in until he actually LEARNS THE TOPIC. Even his own faculty members at the university he teaches at disown him on this topic.

True. He was quite embarassed in Kitzmiller. The plaintiffs showed that he had not even read one of the big papers on the processes he claims science has no account of. He apparently has no honest intention of examining the truth of his accusations.

Originally posted by telerion
True. He was quite embarassed in Kitzmiller. The plaintiffs showed that he had not even read one of the big papers on the processes he claims science has no account of. He apparently has no honest intention of examining the truth of his accusations.

For those of you who haven't done so yet, if you're interested in catching the actual transcripts of the trial and seeing this in reality follow this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

Originally posted by Starrman
For those of you who haven't done so yet, if you're interested in catching the actual transcripts of the trial and seeing this in reality follow this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

From what I can see Behe is fine, up until he 'infers' design. That's taking it too far. The only thing he should infer from complex assemblies of proteins etc, is that those assemblies are complex in organisation!

Similarly for irreducible complexity; simply because he cannot see a way for something to be more simple doesn't mean it wasn't.

His entire position is based on pseudo-science. Opinion "backed up" by real science. Although, of course, by "backed up" I mean he's using good science to try and back up an agenda, irrespective of him stating that he isn't.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
From what I can see Behe is fine, up until he 'infers' design. That's taking it too far. The only thing he should infer from complex assemblies of proteins etc, is that those assemblies are complex in organisation!

Similarly for irreducible complexity; simply because he cannot see a way for something to be more simple doesn't mean it wasn't.

His ...[text shortened]... good science to try and back up an agenda, irrespective of him stating that he isn't.

That made as little sense as I've seen posted here.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That made as little sense as I've seen posted here.

Do you know how to detect design from complexity without knowing anything about the potential designer? If you do, then Bill Dembski would love your advice. He's being trying for years in vain to make the math work out.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope. We have the fossil record, no matter how incomplete. Also, of course, the Theory provides a highly parsimonious (because it only rests on the principles that (A) the earth is not homogeneous, (B) mutation occurs, some of which are beneficial, some harmfull, and (C) beneficial mutations confer reproductive advantage), explaination of WHY and HOW ...[text shortened]... ance and diversity increasing immediately (within 100,000 years) after a mass extinction event.

We have the fossil record, no matter how incomplete.

Which explains why Gould would need a theory to explain the absence of proof, very neat.

So... lets see. Question1: How does the fossil record explain the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction? A hybrid?

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]We have the fossil record, no matter how incomplete.

Which explains why Gould would need a theory to explain the absence of proof, very neat.

So... lets see. Question1: How does the fossil record explain the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction? A hybrid?[/b]

Hal, there ARE intermediate forms as you very well know. I'm getting sick of explaining the same things over and over again to you. And he calls ME the skeptic! Heck, I trust in things when the evidence is there!