jinx wrote:This is for the 1% and not the other 99%.
Do you include yourself in this 1%?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768
In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
I have no idea why you posted this link in support of your argument that evolution does not exist as it presupposes it in every word? Although it was interesting as there has long been discussion about punctuated and explosive evolution but it definitely began to lose the plot at the end with its digression into physics.
I thought fossil studies and biology fairly replete with intermediate forms? This is the old 'missing link' idea with new terms. You ignore that if the point of evolution via natural selection occurs then the older forms would have been bred out. You also ignore that since Genetics we can now identify when species began to differ according to gene sequence.
'Evolution' is not a 'theory'. Hypothesis-observation-theory. ...
Can you see your error here? Its at the end of your triple and is what the Theory of Evolution is, a theory that best explains the observations. It think it also observation- hypothesis-experiment-observation-etc-theory in the main.
... The myth i mean claim that a fish can produce something other than a fish is an untestable conjecture/hypothesis (the official myth is the (delusional) process started and stopped happening pre 6,000 years of written history). Again please do not conflate myth with science. Darwins myths have putrefied every area of science. 'Evolution' has 0 explanatory power because it never happened and no, 'evolution' is NOT open to questioning (have to protect a process that never happened from critical analysis and thought, or else no one would believe it).
Darwins theory, unlike religious dogma, has been questioned and tested since its inception and it just keeps getting refined and stronger. You are allowing your faith to colour your reason but then thats the point I suppose. I think your problem is that you cannot think about geological time as you don't believe the world is old enough, however geology appears to prove you wrong, as such you cannot conceive of the timescales, needed for incremental changes by mutation and sifted via natural selection to produce the complexity of the species we see from the simple cellular creatures that started life. So its no surprise that you cling to this only fish from fish idea. Although the paper you linked to does posit that evolution may also work in spurts and the Burgess-shale does appear to show such an explosion of evolution, so maybe we don't always require such timescales to produce the various forms but even if they occur the process of NS via mutation would still be in action to reward the advantageous ones.
Yes.
My apologies, my unfortunate habit of using negation means I'm unsure if your answer, so "Do you believe the world is 6000 years old and that a 'God, created the Earth and all the animals in six days"?
Physics is not redundant though in the 'evolution' worldview there is no point to the study/observation of nature (why should one mistake (mankind-homo sapiens in the 'evolution' worldview) be able to understand another mistake (nature)). Science is inherently a YEC enterprise. Once again thank you for your ignorance of science life and yada yada yada
Not so, if your 'God' can muck about with the laws of Physics then Physics and the study and observation of nature is pointless.
The Theory of Evolution in Biology is exactly an example of the theoretical part of the scientific method. Its also, with the discovery of the Gene now made Biology an actual Engineering Science as before that it was basically just taxonomy. Although one could argue that Chemistry also did this but since DNA and Genes appear to apply to all living things it appears more apt for Biology.
The YEC enterprise is inherently an example of some religious people trying to retain their faith in their more unsustainable beliefs in the face of science discovering the actual functions behind the observations, i.e. its worried that their 'why's are threatened by the 'hows'.
I fail to understand why some theists do this, not all as the Catholic Church appears to accept the Theory of Evolution(not surprising given the role some of their priest have played in creating it), as all you have to do is keep shoving the cause backwards, 'God started that', and your faith is thereby unassailable, as has been pointed-out to you, science does not, essentially, concern itself with 'first causes' rather just functions.
