OT: Evolution is speculative

[AKA]

Evolution is speculative just as Creationism is speculative.

 

Yet, Evolution claims to be scientific.

 

Under the scientific method, a theory must be able to be tested and * reproduced * in order to be called scientific.

 

Can science produce evolution?

 

By the burden of the scientific method, evolution is speculative, unless a scientist can indeed produce a human from an ape.

 

Extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim.

 

By my logic, it just doesnt make sense that one species can create another species.

 

If the genetic material of a giraffe were artificially inseminated into an elephant, would a baby giraffe or something other than a giraffe be born?

 

Of course not, theyre two different and separate species, you cant squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

Scientists dont understand the *specific* mutations in DNA that cause diseases in humans right now, how CAN WE BE SURE WE UNDERSTAND genetic mutations that happened in animals millions of years ago? It just doesnt make sense.

 

Until Scientists understand and have command over the genetic mutations that cause diseases in humans, I cant believe their theories on genetic mutations in pre historic animals.

 

Why dont Evolutionists say evolution is just a THEORY.

 

Why are they so arrogant to call it science when they can not prove it scientifically (i.e. a human evolved from an ape).

 

Just admit that evolution is a BELIEF held by scientists that is full of rank speculation.

 

Creationism is just a THEORY and BELIEF too, just like evolution.

[aliengroover]

Because they can't. Science also is based a bit on observation, and evolution is not something they can necessarily, first hand, observe happening. What they do observe is patterns, and the patterns "suggest" that this, evolution, is what happened. It's ALL speculation.

 

Many scientists are too tied to numbers and equations. Everything in this universe is not paintable by numbers, and the anomalies are plentiful to prove this. They'd be wise to remember that when faced with the beginning of this universe.

 

Of note, I believe there's validity in both popular schools of thought, and perhaps the truth is a combination of both. However, I don't believe we'll ever truly know what happened.

Peace

Peace

[Gabriel E.]

This belongs in the political forum.

[DJDM]

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

This belongs in the political forum.

Yep. Unfortunately it does.

[AKA]

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

This belongs in the political forum.

Why, Im not talking about politics or religion.

 

Im talking about science.

[Thomas Wilburn]

Trust us. It should be there.

 

Besides, it sounds to me like you need to do some more reading about what the theory of evolution actually says before you discount it.

[Angelo Clematide]

the titel makes it not belong here not the content.

 

Just retitel e.g.

 

"FROM NEANDERTHAL TO DIGITHAL"

 

and many will join in

 

and yes, the opening words are not very profound

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by AKA:

Can science produce evolution?

Yes, it can. Evolution has been seen in various species in closed-system lab-built "ecosystems". Remember that some species have a much shorter lifespan than humans, so mutations and evolution of physical properties/behavior over many generations is easier to observe. Now consider the long term biological effects of genetic mutations, and how many of them are likely to occur over thousands of generations. Humans are not the same as we were 10, 100, and 1000 years ago. Somatic muations are static and affect the individual organism, but most mutations (germ-like) are passed on to the next generation and are the basis of evolution. Mutations due to replication errors are extremely rare.

 

OT: They have mapped out the entire human genome, right? Why then, is there no cure for cancer? Cancer is a genetic disorder, caused by the failure of a particular gene to regulate cell division. It would only make sense that the complete understanding of the human genome would uncover cures for this and numerous other genetic disorders. What gives?

[Thomas Wilburn]

Good question. I was under the assumption that when they'd said they'd mapped the genome, it meant they knew the layout of the genes, but they didn't know what they all did.

 

I think cancer may also have multiple gene sequences that can activate it, and the ability to test cures is highly limited, due to restrictions on gene therapy in this country.

 

I think if we see a cure for cancer, it may come out of private companies or universities elsewhere in the world, much like cloning. It's too difficult to do here.

[AKA]

Originally posted by Jeebus:

Originally posted by AKA:

Can science produce evolution?

Yes, it can. Evolution has been seen in various species in closed-system lab-built "ecosystems".

 

Such as

 

Id love to read about it if you have a link.

 

This guy offers of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.

 

http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp

[Angelo Clematide]

evolution is speculative, unless a scientist can indeed produce a human from an ape

this has been answered by the

Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band

in 1967, the tune is called:

"Can Blue Men Sing The Whites?"

[Angelo Clematide]

"This guy offers of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution"

 

and then he nails you to the cross

[Philthy_dup1]

FWIW, evolution is an observable phenomenon.

 

There were detailed and documented studies done on island populations of finches that showed physiological adaptations to changing food availabilities year-on-year.

 

I answered your question in good faith. Now return that good faith and read the link:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html

[Slowly]

I don't believe in evolution. If so, that would mean the planet earth evolved and found it needed man, or animals. What possible purpose do man or any of the animals have to do with earth's existence? I think earth would have been fine without any of us. Kcbass

[pseudonym]

Maybe GOD created evolution? Also, you may want to read a book by Charles Darwin, I read it several years ago, called "The Origin of Species", I immediately went to confession afterward to cleanse my soul of the devil's blasphemy.

[AKA]

Originally posted by Philthy:

FWIW, evolution is an observable phenomenon.

 

There were detailed and documented studies done on island populations of finches that showed physiological adaptations to changing food availabilities year-on-year.

 

I answered your question in good faith. Now return that good faith and read the link:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html

Thanks for the link Philthy, natural section makes sense to me.

 

It makes sense that the female would pick a male with the strongest characteristics for survival of her young.

 

What I dont get is how a species evolves into another species.

 

i.e Ape to Human or dolphin to penguin.

 

If evolution is true, there must be some new species in our lifetime we can point to and say, new species X have been born from cows.

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Kcbass:

I don't believe in evolution. If so, that would mean the planet earth evolved and found it needed man, or animals. What possible purpose do man or any of the animals have to do with earth's existence? I think earth would have been fine without any of us. Kcbass

Earth happens to have excellent resources, climate, and position in our galaxy to support carbon-based life. Earth didn't have a choice, and it didn't decide that it needed us here.

 

I don't believe in evolution.

Evolution isn't something to believe in. It's not a theory, suggestion, or a faith. It's a biological process that you either understand, or you don't.

[Angelo Clematide]

well AKA, why ?

because you ask a question in one line and in the next you are answering yourself.

 

so why should i answer to?

you did that already yourself!

[nursers]

Originally posted by Jeebus:

Originally posted by AKA:

Can science produce evolution?

Yes, it can. Evolution has been seen in various species in closed-system lab-built "ecosystems". Remember that some species have a much shorter lifespan than humans, so mutations and evolution of physical properties/behavior over many generations is easier to observe. Now consider the long term biological effects of genetic mutations, and how many of them are likely to occur over thousands of generations. Humans are not the same as we were 10, 100, and 1000 years ago. Somatic muations are static and affect the individual organism, but most mutations (germ-like) are passed on to the next generation and are the basis of evolution. Mutations due to replication errors are extremely rare.

 

OT: They have mapped out the entire human genome, right? Why then, is there no cure for cancer? Cancer is a genetic disorder, caused by the failure of a particular gene to regulate cell division. It would only make sense that the complete understanding of the human genome would uncover cures for this and numerous other genetic disorders. What gives?

Jeebus, unfortunately it ain't as simplistic as that. Basically, every cancer is different. There's not one gene that explains it all.I'm guessing some breakthroughs in future years for particular cancers, but there ain't a magic bullet for them all in one go unfortunately.

[Slowly]

Originally posted by Philthy:

FWIW, evolution is an observable phenomenon.

 

There were detailed and documented studies done on island populations of finches that showed physiological adaptations to changing food availabilities year-on-year.

 

I answered your question in good faith. Now return that good faith and read the link:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html

That's adaption and not evolution. I easily catch colds, but my cousins don't. But, on the other hand, they can't eat the variety of foods I can. Some foods I eat give the gas and runs, and I'm like "What?". So if there were a major cold epeidmic my kids and me might not survive, but if something caused beans to be a staple diet they might not survive. Kcbass

[Mr.WOW]

I am the missing link.

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Kcbass:

That's adaption and not evolution.

 

It's physiological adaptation(not adaption), which is part of evolution.

 

I easily catch colds, but my cousins don't. But, on the other hand, they can't eat the variety of foods I can. Some foods I eat give the gas and runs, and I'm like "What?". So if there were a major cold epeidmic my kids and me might not survive, but if something caused beans to be a staple diet they might not survive. Kcbass

 

They might not survive, but if they attempt to eat enough beans their offspring and future generations might as a result of genetic mutations allowing digestion of beans. Thus evolution would have occurred.

[realtrance]

Less expostulation, more reading. Recommended, Stephen Jay Gould, "Ever Since Darwin." An extremely enjoyable collection of essays.

 

rt

[Angelo Clematide]

Why are they so arrogant to call it science when they can not prove it scientifically (i.e. a human evolved from an ape)

Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. A new statistical method for estimating divergence dates of species from DNA sequence data by a molecular clock approach is developed. This method takes into account effectively the information contained in a set of DNA sequence data. The molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was calibrated by setting the date of divergence between primates and ungulates at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (65 million years ago), when the extinction of dinosaurs occurred. A generalized least-squares method was applied in fitting a model to mtDNA sequence data, and the clock gave dates of 92.3 +/- 11.7, 13.3 +/- 1.5, 10.9 +/- 1.2, 3.7 +/- 0.6, and 2.7 +/- 0.6 million years ago (where the second of each pair of numbers is the standard deviation) for the separation of mouse, gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee, respectively, from the line leading to humans. Although there is some uncertainty in the clock, this dating may pose a problem for the widely believed hypothesis that the pipedal creature Australopithecus afarensis, which lived some 3.7 million years ago at Laetoli in Tanzania and at Hadar in Ethiopia, was ancestral to man and evolved after the human-ape splitting. Another likelier possibility is that mtDNA was transferred through hybridization between a proto-human and a proto-chimpanzee after the former had developed bipedalism. by Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T.

 

may also read here:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dop t=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=3934395

 

and the minister who want to pay 250'000 for last evidence

I mean, just to educate this bloke that he would understand this evidence would cost at least quadruple as much!

[Wewus432]

This whole debate is something played out in the "human mind" over, and over, and over. It is the debate between simplicity, and complexity, which eventually does become the debate between good and evil, left and right, right and wrong, etc., etc., and neither view is true, or correct, or right or wrong, because the whole thing is circular reasoning........or something.

[Angelo Clematide]

yes - or something

[AKA]

Although there is some uncertainty in the clock, this dating may pose a problem for the widely believed hypothesis that the pipedal creature Australopithecus afarensis, which lived some 3.7 million years ago at Laetoli in Tanzania and at Hadar in Ethiopia, was ancestral to man and evolved after the human-ape splitting. Another likelier possibility is that mtDNA was transferred through hybridization between a proto-human and a proto-chimpanzee after the former had developed bipedalism. by Hasegawa M, Kishino H, Yano T.

 

may also read here:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dop t=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=3934395

 

[/QB]

----------------------------------------------------------

This guy is not even sure of his own theory. LOL

 

Less theory and more hard evidence is need from scientists.

 

Scientists have made the claim that humans evolved from apes, it is there burden to prove it.

 

Extraordinary evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim.

 

If evolution is true, there must be at least ONE new species in our lifetime we can point to and say look, this new species evolved from this species.

 

Please point me to an article, to evidence that shows ANY species giving birth to a new species.

 

That's all I ask.

[nursers]

Giving birth to a new species is a false assertion of what evolution is.

 

A better example:

 

Over the next 500 years we continue to lead sedentary lives. Evolution may mean our stomachs shrink so we don't eat as much, preventing or minimising the obesity issues.

 

Asking for proof of evolution in our lifetime is a silly request - this stuff happens over thousands or even millions of years.

[AKA]

nursers wrote:

 

{{{Giving birth to a new species is a false assertion of what evolution is.}}}

 

But, scientists assert that humans evolved from apes.

 

{{{Asking for proof of evolution in our lifetime is a silly request - this stuff happens over thousands or even millions of years.}}}

 

I rest my case.

 

You have no proof.

 

On the evolutionary time scale and within our lifetime, there must be at least ONE species on the planet evolving into a new species, if evolution is true.

 

Please, dont cut and paste theories from Stephen Jay Gould or others.

 

Please point me to an article, to evidence that shows ANY species giving birth to a new species.

 

That's all I ask.

[nursers]

Hmmm I think we'll leave this 'discussion' where it belongs - in the political forum