Road rules3 mins ago
Darwinism Finches And The Pepper Moth
87 Answers
Darwinism finches beaks and the Pepper moth are given as just two examples of evolution.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
Answers
A few weeks ago, evolutionist
15:31 Sun 20th Sep 2015
// When I get my degree in cell biology, I.T. systems etc, I'll make the judgement. //
erm no... Meyer's Ph D from Cambridge was in the history of science wasnt it
https:/
so clearly that will do .....
erm no... Meyer's Ph D from Cambridge was in the history of science wasnt it
https:/
so clearly that will do .....
@Theland
//How many scientists in the past have been in the minority and time has proven them correct? //
It is genuinely difficult to find a crank who *doesn't* use this specific phrase. I suspect it is a mixture of persecution complex and high levels of egocentricity. They all think they are the next Galileo, Darwin, or Einstein. Some of them must be complete strangers to scientific journals because it is not possible to even set the scene, in the opening paragraph of a published research paper, without adding a list of other researchers' published works to the references section.
A paradigm shift will require tens or hundreds of papers in order to refute each and every one of the seminal works upon which the "orthodoxy" is established.
Galileo had it easy: he only had to wait for a growing chorus of voices (after his lifetime, like as not) to study what he studied, in the field of astronomy, to also conclude that "and yet, it moves".
Darwin wanted to delay publication until after his own death, to duck the inevitable flack. His hand was forced by Wallace who would have published his (independently arrived at) theory first if he hadn't been in (what is now) Indonesia, at the time (weeks, by ship for his drafts to reach a London publisher).
Darwin's book was not subject to peer review in the way a research paper is but 150+ years of debate is as good a review process as any I know. Richard Dawkins' books are mostly under 40 years old and may yet be refuted by means of mathematical proofs or their failure to make useful predictions about the real world. Time will tell. Note: I am talking about refutations by *non-religious fellow scientists*, not theists with an agenda.
//When I get my degree in cell biology, I.T. systems etc, I'll make the judgement. //
You probably could answer exam questions correctly and even get into cancer research without ever having to pay lip service to the theory of evolution.
If you spend £27,000 on getting the degree (plus living expenses) try not to be disappointed to find out that researchers are any closer to working out abiogenesis than they were in the 1980s, which was when I studied biochemistry.
You will, however be able to join the irreducible complexity crowd and cite the letters after your name to lend weight to your argument.
Wouldn't that be annoying? (to people like me)
//How many scientists in the past have been in the minority and time has proven them correct? //
It is genuinely difficult to find a crank who *doesn't* use this specific phrase. I suspect it is a mixture of persecution complex and high levels of egocentricity. They all think they are the next Galileo, Darwin, or Einstein. Some of them must be complete strangers to scientific journals because it is not possible to even set the scene, in the opening paragraph of a published research paper, without adding a list of other researchers' published works to the references section.
A paradigm shift will require tens or hundreds of papers in order to refute each and every one of the seminal works upon which the "orthodoxy" is established.
Galileo had it easy: he only had to wait for a growing chorus of voices (after his lifetime, like as not) to study what he studied, in the field of astronomy, to also conclude that "and yet, it moves".
Darwin wanted to delay publication until after his own death, to duck the inevitable flack. His hand was forced by Wallace who would have published his (independently arrived at) theory first if he hadn't been in (what is now) Indonesia, at the time (weeks, by ship for his drafts to reach a London publisher).
Darwin's book was not subject to peer review in the way a research paper is but 150+ years of debate is as good a review process as any I know. Richard Dawkins' books are mostly under 40 years old and may yet be refuted by means of mathematical proofs or their failure to make useful predictions about the real world. Time will tell. Note: I am talking about refutations by *non-religious fellow scientists*, not theists with an agenda.
//When I get my degree in cell biology, I.T. systems etc, I'll make the judgement. //
You probably could answer exam questions correctly and even get into cancer research without ever having to pay lip service to the theory of evolution.
If you spend £27,000 on getting the degree (plus living expenses) try not to be disappointed to find out that researchers are any closer to working out abiogenesis than they were in the 1980s, which was when I studied biochemistry.
You will, however be able to join the irreducible complexity crowd and cite the letters after your name to lend weight to your argument.
Wouldn't that be annoying? (to people like me)
// A paradigm shift will require tens or hundreds of papers in order to refute each and every one of the seminal works upon which the "orthodoxy" is established. //
off thread a bit - I note Theland has gone to greater threads
Both Einstein and Newton were greeted with 'obviously correct'
whereas Max Planck asked how he had got the old professors to accept quantum theory said: they all died ...
so paradigm shifts have a varied birth
off thread a bit - I note Theland has gone to greater threads
Both Einstein and Newton were greeted with 'obviously correct'
whereas Max Planck asked how he had got the old professors to accept quantum theory said: they all died ...
so paradigm shifts have a varied birth
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.