Evolution is a valid scientific theory

So anybody read the link I posted?

Evidence of rapid Evolution of a single body part at a time.

A Cataclysmic Adjustment -- probably due to a vital environmental change. A statistical propositon. Most spicies die. But a tiny percentage adapt by chance due to mutations--

That brings up a point that I'm not sure everyone understands. Genetic Mutations are random and always occuring as an Evolutionary response to two Environmental stimuli-- Radiation and Uncertainty.

If the macro environment changes radically, such as the ocean drying up, the only way a species survives is by chance.

imagine if a fatal and irresistable pandemic sweep the world, killing everyone except autistic people. The human race might survive-but only because Autism is a relatively common mutation. That would mean they were the Strong.
But without that pandemic, Autism is dragging people back.

Without that mutation factor, the first mass extiction would have been the last.

 

You're right. The only thing that separates a donkey and a horse are 2 chromosomes. Scientist think chromosomal fusion or breakage is one of the main mechanisms for the evolution of the horse.

An observed speciation event through chromosomal fusion or breakage would definitely be smoking gun. They've already discovered a zebra with 45 chromosomes instead of 44. If it was to breed with another zebra with 45 it is possible they could produce offspring with 46 and Bingo! instantaneous speciation.

 

Of course Darwin's theory is not 100% analogous to one I just made up for comparison (imagine, if it was it would make Darwinists sound like they were beating down on their chests and screaming loudly "I AM the Baron Munchausen!"), but as you noticed, it's close

 

This reminds me of the Delta 32 mutation that gave people immunity to the black plague in the middle ages. The same mutation was passed on and is now giving people immunity to the aids virus. They estimate 10-15% of the Swedish population (where the mutation originated) has atleast partial immunity to aids.

I haven't read the link yet, but just about to.

 

Funny yes.
Close no.

 

Where's the Logic Guy?

Proposition:

engine propelled vehicles evolved from gas stoves.

1) unlike life, machines enjoy convergent evolution. except for the "e" word who will deny that there is ample evidence for this?

2) Intermediaries include the steam engine. Predessecors include the Wheel.

3) the evolutionary mechanism was Man. The enviromental change, Knowledge.

It's just not Bio-Evolution!
Change is EVERYWHERE

But seriously, the point is that the above is essentially correct. However, who among us can fill in every detail of the transition from lighting a bunsen burner and putting a pot of water on it, to the steam engine, to the internal cumbustion engine?
Is it even possible to uncover those details?

yet the Anti-science people would have Science start with millions (tens of Millions?) of different kinds of life forms and explain every little detail of each one's formation. It's never going to be possible, because it's impossible to get the data needed to develop the Math needed, and impossible to find a living sample of every species that ever existed.

 

Well-- there wasn't much chance of someone seeing a supernova in a telescope, but we got lucky.
Maybe were on a roll.

 

Statistically, that eventuallity must happen, given enough time.
Which means there is a chance it could happen any time, since it's clearly possible for a zebra to form a new chromosome.
That suggest an equation:

Where
T is Time
U is uncertainty (I don't know how to type the symbol)
Z is a new zebra chromosome
N is the nuber of zebras

(T/U)N=Z

The answer would be maximum amount of time before we could expect the change. in other words, the odds against it happening right now. 'Some time in the next Z amount of time. Logic Guy?

This suggest that if we take the date modern zebras first are know to have existed and subtract it from the date on which a zebra with 45 chromosomes was discovered, then guesstimate the average zebra population during that period of time, we could almost derive a numerical answer.

Not as ridiculas as it sounds. U is so small and T so large that Z is a huge number, so the difference between our estimates and reality would be a near insignificant percentage. so much so that we can probably drop the N without to huge a loss in accuracy. But part of the answer would still be U.

 

In examining geckopellis post of world view enigmas are presented. One I am familiar with and I looked at it in the same way. geckopelli, 0=(1+-1), me 1+-1=0, or for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is a mathematical picture of stasis, not action. However it's not the math that's messing with reason, it's the word formula that is messing with the math. A word formula depicting action would look like all actions are equal, 1+1=2.
At first parameters of existence are defined, with the caveat, that there was a point of no existence. Then later modified as sub-parameters. The appropriate linguistic integers for parameters of existence are real and not real. What is not real does not exist and we are left with the condition of realty. Condition means to speak with, (1+1) not (1+-1). To use a popular phrase, they enter 2 by 2, male and female, each according to their kind. The parameter for the changing conditions of existence has two polls. Absolute 0 and the speed of light. He talks about the increasing complexity of molecules, which alludes to a point I made at another time concerning the aggregation of bodies wherein I offered the soft example of taking in nutrients, which was passed off as food sources being relatively stable and therefore of insignificant environmental pressure to contribute to mutation. However, relatively stable is not stable and mass extinction, ultimately from disruption of food sources plays a huge role in the unfolding of species. Another misnomer I see complicating considerations is environmental pressure. If it is 1+1 then it would more accurately be environmental engagement. The idea of opposing force is seriously complicating the issue.

 

You just said it was close not complete, now you say itsn't even close , so which one is it?

Seriously, though, if you think in a nutshell that's what Darwinists suggest we accept as scientific evidence for the theory, and the fact that biological organisms are infinitely more complex than a tractor or a car makes it even more difficult to reason that the mechanics as suggested by Darwin are responsile for producing them.

It can be said in defense of Darwin himself that he may have really believed his own mechanism of evolutionary development due to lack of much more comprehensive knowledge of matter which was gained after he was gone.

It is the latest discoveries (including those of Mendel and all the way to New Synthesis) that make it impossible for us to accept mechanics as simple as suggested by Darwin to be responsible for development of most primitive single cell into variety of thousands of species.

Now some might say this is an indication of ID or God, just as modern day Darwinist may argue that mere error of ID crowd is proof that Darwinists are right (since neither God nor ID is scientifically valid theory).

But to me both are indications of limitations of human knowledge and intelligence,anthropomorphic projections of one's own feelings, intuitions and expectations of what the nature of biological process is or should be.

And neither one of those come accross as a really scientific way of looking at things.

In science you inquire to know. You go as far as possible to reach the edge of knowable , you make very rigorous attempt to discover all there is, all you can possibly discover.
Once you reach the edge[and it happens quite a lot in all major branches of hard science] you stop at the invisible wall and start to marvel at mystery that lies beyond.
In fact only few actually reach that edge [as most are simply diletants who think everything is knowable or all is known already, but that's due to limitations of their own knowledge].


In short: mechanics offered by Darwinists may work on higer levels and only within a limited range (as in microevolution) , but it does not answer how the mechanics could have worked from most basic, primitive level and up , how the most sweeping steps of evolution were possible.

The explanation offered by Darwinists appear to be far too primitive compared to complexity of what they thus try to explain.

 

I'm with you here however I would suggest incomplete as opposed to primitive. Replace most basic, primitive level and up, with basic. The process is from the simple to the complex. We are according unequal fascination in our wonderment, by equating more complex with superior. Man was never a savage no more nature a beast.

 

I will not replace anything. I thought well before typing those words.

 

But first, it should be (T/U)/N=Z

you've slightly miss interpreted the (-1) + 1 = 0. the "0" is not the sum of reaction, but a quantum Leap. When matter is formed, so is electric charge. Due to consevation laws, the + and - are required.

However this point is valid;
The Universe, as a whole, IS static. to an observer "outside" it would be a single quantum of Universe.
But we're observers inside, and we are subject to "turbulence" that can be described as "Universial Brownian Motion". Hence, within a static "enclosure", dynamic events occur. But. in the long run, nothing is ventured and nothing is gained.

"Sub Parameters" was clearly stated to be a personal label for convience.
That fact of the matter is that events during the first few nano-seconds of existence are pretty much still up in the air. the emergent "parameters" emerged; that's an easily verified fact. the order of events is best left to Quantum Mechanics.

"The appropriate linguistic integers for parameters of existence are real and not real"
Logic is a great servent, but a terrible master. it must be overridden with reason.
as previously stated, nothing cannot interact with something.
And remember, i'm not writing a thesis for an examination board; i can be completly rigorous if needed, but then it'd get boring.
And, after all, I'm an entertainment writer.

As to absolute zero and C being opposite ends of pole, this is incorrect.
You're thinking in terms of matter, not energy
C is an absolute limit that cannot be crossed, Absolute zero, thanks to Brownian Motion (read is not "energy content"), not to mentionE=MC2, is not. the bottom limit is complete Entropy.

As for food sources being the main source of mass extinction:
Asians lack the gene to metabolize alcohol, but are just as human as anybody else. If it were possible to live on alcohol and all other food sources were destroyed, the asian sub-divison of humanity would die off.
But Humans would continue.
I leave you to draw your own concludsion from that.

 

"In science you inquire to know. You go as far as possible to reach the edge of knowable , you make very rigorous attempt to discover all there is, all you can possibly discover.
Once you reach the edge[and it happens quite a lot in all major branches of hard science] you stop at the invisible wall and start to marvel at mystery that lies beyond."

THIS IS BALONEY. As far as you can go is to the edge of Uncertainty or Chaos (As in "theory").

Unless a researcher runs into one of those walls, he kicks back and devises a new approach to the problem. He's not a religious nut marveling at his ignorance. he's seeking observations.

"The explanation offered by Darwinists appear to be far too primitive compared to complexity of what they thus try to explain."

Appear to be??????
Only to the uneducated or fanatical.
To educated, objective observers the explanaion offered by Science "appears" to be not incorrect. Hobson's Choice.

Is sub-atomic physics wrong?
It's a relatively simple explanation for the existence of complexed reality itself. And WE CAN SET OFF A HYDROGEN BOMB. The explanation is close enough to be useful.
So we're back to creationism.

 

Do you guys have jobs?

 

I' m a writer. Want to read something Really good?

This is brain lube for me. I'm just writing off the top of my head. Helps me straighten out plot details in my sub-councious.
But I've wondered about that myself.

I figure we've got at least one dope dealer, one who is in some sort of restricted living condition, one who is just bored and curious, and one with a secret agenda. Or maybe two of those are the same person.
It's also been sugested (not by me) that we have a schizophrenic. so maybe two of Them are (is?) the same person.

 

Listen at 4:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqwm6RbxcQ
Tell me this guy is a baloney and religious fanatic.
Who is ignorant, fanatical dumb donkey?

Go learn to wipe your behind first

 

I appreciate the affection, I am near death. For purposes of this forum, I am also a writer. I hope you are entertained.

 

I see the major problem.
It stems from fact that Darwin himself was a diletant, not a scientist in real term of the word.
That this diletant became founder of a dogma in which countless numer of fanatical zealots have such a blind and irrational faith, well , that doesn't surprise me at all.

But to accept that gibberish about random chance and natural selection as a primary mechanism responsible for evolution of species from most primitive to most complex is to insult one's own intelligence.
That's not something I will do.

 

I think it's much more the case that it's really not random, that the universe has an evolutionary flow towards more complexity--this is how I've come to answer that for myself. It's my hope that scientific knowledge will shift towards that understanding, find some new mechanism behind mutations. That was the reason why that "quantum" evolution hypothesis sounded fascinating. Basically, I guess I'm keeping an open mind...