McCulloch wrote:
Volbrigade wrote:I'm glad you recognize m2m as a pejorative, for a feeble idea the is immanently worthy of such treatment.
If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment. However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about. Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process. Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion. Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon. Evolution did not set about to create humans. It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.
Volbrigade wrote:It boils down to this: "we think those rocks are very old. We think that, because they have been unchanged for a long time -- generations -- and therefore, they must have formed by very, very slow processes.
This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.
However, this discription is one that is made by those ignorant of what evolution is all about.
Are Peppered Moths an example of "evolution"?
If evolution could be described as microbes to men, then it would be worthy of such treatment.
Au Contraire Sir, this is evolution...
From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...
‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
evolution isn't even a Valid Hypothesis, let alone "Science" or a Valid Scientific Theory, As Evidenced By:
"The
scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with
experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is,
its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science,
"experiment is supreme" and
experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle).
Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable),
do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html
The Scientific Method...
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
This is Fog a Mirror: the Tenets of, and Exactly what "Actual Real Science" is and does. Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century. (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist"---Stephen Jay Gould)...
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...
"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a
historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.
LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009
So....
Professor Mayr: "Evolutionary biology, IN CONTRAST with physics and chemistry".
If there was no difference in methodology, there would be no..."IN CONTRAST" with Two Empirical Sciences.
Professor Mayr: "the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place"
Hmm, How can you Observe a Phenomenon if the event has already taken place without a Time Machine? That also means that it is Impossible to formulate a "Valid" HYPOTHESIS.
Professor Mayr: "Laws and EXPERIMENTS are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."
Uhh ohh. Isn't the MOST CRITICAL STEP of The Scientific Method....EXPERIMENT? To ahh, VALIDATE the Hypothesis, maybe?
Say Goodbye to: Step 1 (Observe a Phenomenon), Step 3 Hypothesis, Step 4 (Experiment). KaBooM!!
By the Way, the fine Professor's Truthful Statement is the Classic Foundation for: Begging The Question (Fallacy) and "Just So" Stories.
And then of course there's this, which Echoes Professor Mayr's synopsis...
“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
How in the world are you gonna form a "Valid" Hypothesis if you can make ZERO predictions?
So as outlined, evolution is not "Scientific" or a "Theory" and is "False"- Science (Pseudo-Science).
Humanity is not the end point nor the goal of the evolutionary process.
Let's Craw/Walk/ then Run. Before we get to Humanity, can you explain these...
Using the "Scientific Method":
1. "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
To refute, Please show a "Functional" 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin.
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?
Evolution is a blind aimless process, like erosion.
In SUPPORT, Can you detail "the process" of Blind Unguided "Natural" Causation of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes...(DNA)?
Erosion did not set about to create the Grand Canyon.
How about Mt. Rushmore? Ya see, that motif displays Functional Specific Complexity....multiply that by a Factor of 10^000000000000000000000 and you might get into the zipcode of the Functional Sequence Complexity of the "Simplest" Cell.
It is not microbes to men, but microbes to every living entity on the planet.
Support ? .... as in VALIDATED Experiments (We are Talking Scientific Evidence, correct?). Lets start with ONE piece of the Hardware? Then The Elephant in the Room....The SOFTWARE.
This is an ignorant characterization of modern geology.
Geology isn't "Science" either. Unless you can show ONE Experiment VALIDATING any Postulate.....? If you have any, Please provide the: Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables of the TESTS...? Thanks
regards