Dr. Anthony Fauci is a real time illustration on how absurdity becomes mainstream "science".
- Thread starter Andreas
- Start date
That book is about species and races across all living things.
Charles Darwin was curiously unforthcoming on the subject of human evolution as viewed through the fossil record, to the point of being virtually silent. He was, of course, most famously reticent on the matter in On The Origin of Species, noting himself in 1871 that his only mention of human origins had been one single throwaway comment, in his concluding section:
“light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (Darwin 1859, p. 488).
This has, of course, to rank among the most epic understatements ever. And of course, it begged the question, “what light?” But in the event, Darwin proved highly resistant to following up on this question. This is true even of his 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in which Darwin finally forced himself to confront the implications of his theory for the origin of humankind, and the main title of which is in many ways something of a teaser.
Charles Darwin and Human Evolution - Evolution: Education and Outreach
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com
I am not sure whether to put this down to ignorance or dishonesty on your part Andreas. Are you just parroting what you are told to say? Or do you know full well what you are doing?
Why would a liver fossilise? Do you really know so little about fossils?
Why are there no liver fossils in the creationist model? o livers before the flood?
But the science moves ever onwards.
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know
The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe - Scientific Reports
Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life. A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a long polymer having a correct nucleotide...
www.nature.com
Ancient proteins offer new clues about origins of life on Earth
In early Earth simulation co-led by Hopkins researchers, scientists gain insights into how amino acids shaped the genetic code of ancient microorganisms
hub.jhu.edu
We always have science, so not a problem.
You mean something creationism cannot explain, but science can.
No, science based on fossils we do have, on genetics, on radiometric dating and countless other evidence.
How does creationism explain that? Did animals not have a central nervous system before the flood?
You still pretending to be a surgeon? Is your life so pathetic you have to pretend to have a real job?
Actually the Smithsonian alone has over 40 million fossils.
Anyone with a clue about science would know there is far more evidence for evolution than "some bone fragments" - but I doubt you have even heard of the nested hierarchy.
Can you demonstrate a world wide flood?
rossum
Well-known member
That is standard science. Gravity is a fact. Theories of evolution are different, there have been different theories: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and soon Quantum Gravity.
The theory is not established. As with all theories, it is the best explanation of the facts we currently have. As and when we discover a fossil rabbit from the Precambrian, the current theory will be replaced.
The watch is designed. According to the ID hypothesis the grass is also designed. Both are designed, albeit by different designers. Hence Paley is incorrect. The difference between the watch and the grass is not a difference between design and non-design, but instead a difference between designer A and designer B. Hence, Paley is useless in distinguishing between design and non-design.
Would you be willing to say that evolution (i.e. that all life came from a common ancestor) is not a fact?
rossum
Well-known member
Science is aware that it does not know everything, and that new discoveries are possible. There were no black swans known to European science until black swans were found in Australia. Science has learned to live with an element of uncertainty implicit in the existence of the (currently) unknown.
If we find extraterrestrial life, then it will probably not be from the same common ancestor as ourselves, unless the panspermia hypothesis is correct.
If we find extraterrestrial life, then it will probably not be from the same common ancestor as ourselves, unless the panspermia hypothesis is correct.
As much a fact as that the earth orbits the sun.
It is the conclusion based on all of the evidence that we have and only denied by people like flat earthers and others that believe otherwise due to a faith position.
even if there were multiple abiogenesis events, all evidence of extant life on earth indites a common ancestor at some point.
You are not able to discern the difference between the fact of precisely predicting/observing the orbit of the earth and claims about evolution that have never been observed and can't be predicted.
For you speculation about a narrative that you want is on par with observable phenomena that is precisely measurable. You are a radical.
Temujin
Well-known member
I have heard exobiologists on TV saying that any life on Mars could possibly share ancestry with earth,which is why they are so excited by the possibility of life on gas giant moons. That would be completely independent of earth.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
So your idiots have no way of studying ancient soft tissue.
You don't know anything about anatomy and physiology.
.and the endocrine system just poofed into existence/
Your non science kult packed with speculation..
When you can come up with evidence that all extant life on earth is not related to each other then science will reevaluate the conclusion that all extant life is descended from a common ancestor, otherwise it stands as a precise prediction of the theory of evolution with no more scientific data disconfirming it than disconfirms the earth orbiting the sun. It is scientific knowledge, it could be wrong, as we might be wrong about celestial mechanics, but to argue that it is "speculation" in light of the everyday observations of evolution and the all the evidence in confirmation of the conclusion of common ancestry is to either mangle the language or or ignore reality. You have a totally faith based position with no more evidence for it than for your faith based position on your God. You are welcome to it, but don't pretend that it is not.
"Science" is not aware of anything. People are. I mean some people are. But science doesn't do or know anything. Having denied God you give creative agency to "science" and "natural selection" as if to a deity. Bizzaro.
rossum
Well-known member
You deny far more gods than I do:
Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.
-- Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One
You are wrong on many levels here.
1. "Science" is not an intelligent agency and doesn't reevaluate anything. People do.
2. You are asking to prove a negative that all life on earth is not related. Evolutionists are not given a free pass by saying "we believe so and so until you prove it can't". That's not the scientific method.
3. You are failing to distinguish between observable and measurable phenomena with speculation about things no one has ever seen. They don't even actually have or know what the first living cell was.
4. You believe nothing is the cause of the universe and I don't have enough faith like you to believe that nothing can do anything.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Taunting
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
In your opinion, what role does inference play in the scientific method?
It plays a huge role, but all inferences need to be judged individually. Watching someone develop their long jump from 5 feet to 10 feet in a month does not mean that in 12 months they will be jumping 55 feet. Likewise, observing a mutation break a gene function and spread to the population in 12 months, doesn't mean that in 12 million years a bacteria will become a frog. Evolutionists have a little magic box called natural selection/deep time. Add water and "nature will innovate" to account for anything that is needed for evolutionists to put on a fancy slide show.
Evolutionists barely have good cases of clear speciation to observe. They don't even claim observing more than that. Evolutionists claim the generation of new Phyla by the same mechanism that they struggle to explain speciation. How can this be a good inference?
"Look mom, I built a paper rocket ship and watch me jump off the chair. I just know I can go to the moon with it mom!"
"Stop it Tommy"
"You just don't believe in me mom. Look, if I can jump 2 feet what makes you think I can't jump to the moon?"
At the end of the day, there is no observable evidence for evolution much beyond what we already see and know and don't debate about.
For all the thousands of years of dog breeding and you still have dogs. More and more sickly breeds of dogs and just dogs. Put them back in nature and they will revert back to what they were thousands of years ago. It's just all cyclical, epigenetic adaption, half-baked survival via mutation, or extinction.
Last edited:
Fine, scientists, those who practice science.
As with black swans, it is not proving a negative, the theory and evidence predict a nested heirarchy,. to disprove it, you need to find
On the contrary, we observe evolution every day and measure evolutionary relationships every day, do you know about Covid variations.
For the umpteenth time, abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Absolutely irrelevant to evolution, it doesn't matter to evolution if your God magicked the first cell into being.