OK....understand this....Evolution exists upon several levels one being the Quantum Level as in Quantum Evolution and then there is Biological Evolution which exists upon the Macro Level. The Macro Level BEGINS upon the Atomic Level. Anything that can BOTH Generate or be Effected by GRAVITY exists upon the Macro Level. The Quantum Level can be effected by Gravity but it cannot Generate Gravity. AA
Yes. They are still of the same species. Apparently, here is how the usage of microevolution started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution Anyway, the issue is not micro evolution.
The claim of intellectual superiority is profoundly invalid not to mention insulting. Your accusation of "ignorance" is not warranted, much less proven. It is simply a disgraceful Leftist Talking Point, which is abused to the utmost.
Still reeling from having your creationist/ID "fuzzy math" debunked? Take it anyway you like. ~fini~.
How is it Leftist?? I am by and by a Conservative but I certainly do not close my eye's to the reality!! AA
You have debunked absolutely nothing, chatter away as you will. The only people who bring up the word "creationist" in discussions of the Darwin tautology is those of you who cling to your outdated and absurd belief. You will never stop playing word games, because the facts are not on your side. Now please join other Leftists on my Ignore List. Life is too short to continue reading posts from those of you who seldom communicate without subtracting from the sum total of human knowledge. ~ciao
Yes...he did debunk it. For a supposed Chemical Engineer you lack of knowledge is disturbing to me. AA
It is interesting that all the problems he posts are from creationist sites. As a chemical engineer, he should be able to come up with novel arguments.
I am curious what you think of this question. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...begin-in-matter-or-fundamental-energy.465052/ Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy? https://www.amazon.com/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Architect/dp/1930722222
Anybody can make up that kind of story, but it isn't science until there is evidence - enough evidence that the story could be proven false if it were indeed false. I'm fine with people asking questions we have no way of answering - it's what drives us forward. But, allowing that to make ANY change in our lives before there is ANY evidence isn't something I would suggest.
Incredible. Ten months since the previous post, and such a controversial subject too. Energy cannot conceivably be a source of intelligence. A battery, light, nuclear fusion, all inanimate and clueless. There was a "cosmic creation" at the Hand of our Creator. How? We can never know. What does a mouse know of the man who picks him up and puts him into a box.
It has been supported in many hundreds of ways, for decades. You simply reject anything contrary to your atheist dogma.
well, not it hasn't. But I'll give you a chance to support it. First, you need to prove this creator exists. Then, you need to prove it cosmically created everything. good luck. no, I reject baseless assertions as the nonsense that they are. You can't support the claim that you made. You know this as well as I do. You can save some face by just admitting you "believe" that a creator exists and that it created everything.
Where is the hard evidence that micro evolution, if it goes on long enough, explains macro evolution? There isn't any such hard evidence but much intellectual based conjecture. It really goes back to the philosophical materialism which evolution is based upon. Since we assume matter is the fundamental of reality, this assumption negates any such idea that something nonmaterial, exists which affects matter, from the outside of the material universe. So, given this assumption, you then have to explain macro evolution using philosophical materialism, and they have never had the hard evidence to give certainty. It is similar to deciding that the Bible has to be interpreted literally, and that the other forms of literary tools do not exist, so only a literal interpretation is allowed. Then you forget someone decided only a literal interpretation exists.
So, you're now conjuring up a new type of evidence called "hard evidence" in order to denigrate a universally accepted theory of science in hopes of supporting your religious assertions for which there is absolutely no evidence of any kind? Evolution is so universally accepted that it is a foundation of all modern biology. Trying to work through your misperceptions might be time consuming, especially if we're going to have to start with the definition of science.
Explain the first hemoglobin synthesis. Human hemoglobin consists of 574 amino acids arranged in a very precise sequence, which sequence is folded in such a complex manner that humans cannot make a single hemoglobin molecule in a laboratory. There are 39 different amino acids, including the 19 racemates of D form. So the number of possible sequences is 39 to the 574th power or 10 to the 810th power. Explain, with your profound scientific intellect, exactly how the impossible task of assembling the one correct sequence of human hemoglobin, out of 10^810 possible others, was accomplished, KNOWING FULL WELL that every step in the assembly demands, according to your "selection" tautology, that each intermediary have a useful function which selectively preserves that step to the exclusion of most if not all others. Your "proof," as you are always demanding of others, will require, oh, about 10 to the 700 steps, and intermediaries, and 'selection" processes. That is just for ONE polypeptide, understand. The human body has thousands of different polypeptides, many longer than hemoglobin. Don't sidestep the question and make idle claims. Answer the challenge for just one compound, recalling that Richard Dawkins has stated his opinion that 1 chance in 10 to the 40th is "impossible".
"Hemoglobin—the oxygen-transport protein that gives blood its red color—got its start at about the time life originated on earth, nearly four billion years ago. Now it is almost ubiquitous, appearing in the cells of plants, animals and even bacteria, and a study of this protein affords scientists a rare glimpse back as well as forward in time. A look at the ancestral hemoglobins indicates that newly arising proteins co-opt the chemistry of older ones and gain new functions through structural alterations. But these studies have revealed an additional way to modify function. Scientists are coming to the realization that changes in a protein's regulation—the when and how of its expression—can also give rise to functional differences. The surprise, says the author, is that these regulatory changes outpace structural ones—an important lesson for students of molecular evolution and a possible indicator of where protein evolution will go in the future." http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/the-evolution-of-hemoglobin There ya' go...now, explain with your profound intellect how God turned mud into a human, keeping in mind the required supernatural joo-joo would need a 1/19874500005567432059474 probability enactment within the 1/937620967399823786098723489.0983452 likelihood parameter.
We don't in science know a lot of things we guess about Black Holes in some areas such as what happens inside one, that doesn't mean the theories we have on them and in evolution are not very viable however.
You can TRY to save some face by explaining how nothing created the universe. Good luck. Hint: Stephen Hawking claims that "all you need is gravity." But gravity is NOT "nothing." Moreover gravity can only operate where there are masses, and masses are not "nothing" either.
You seem confused. I never made the claim the universe was created by nothing. I called you out for the baseless claim you made. You can't support it. You know that you can't support it. All you need to do is reword your assertion by adding the words "I believe" in front of it. I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything I've said. now, would you like to just admit you can't support your assertion, and that you simply "believe" it?
Isn't it fortunate that when your predecessors looked at energetic chemical reactions they didn't just say I don't know so I'll just say god must be doing that.
