Tim Brodie wrote:
I'm always interested that people use the *Theory* of Evolution as
an example of Science. At best you could call it an hypothesis,
since to be science a theory must be observable and repeatable.
things like phyolgenetic relationships, as indicated via the similarity
of the dna of the genome are certainly observable and repeatable
This tells us that living things in general are organized using
similar building blocks, and that plants are organized in similar
ways to other plants, etc. It doesn't necessarily demand conclusions
about origins.
As I've looked into this idea of evolution, what I've found is alot
of conjecture and interdisciplinary circular reasoning. Stories
that constantly change. Comets this year, asteriods last year,
volcanoes the year before.
If you are talking about the mass extinctions which have occured from
time to time over a hundreds of millions of years, then different
extinctions have been discussed in the context of different events.
Nothing here contradicts the simple notion that the diversity of life we
see is due to random mutations selected for by various forces.
Perhaps the comment wasn't helpful; I'm trying to challenge the
notion that explanations more often than not have nothing to do
with historical events, or historical processes.
"These fossils are x-millions of years old" say the *biologists*
"because they're found in rock x-millions of years old." "These rocks
are x-millions of years old" say the *archiologists* "because these
fossils are in them, and we know that these animals lived x-millions of
years ago."
Actually, there are a whole bunch of methods for dating. In addition to
stragraphy, there are numerous radioactive decay series, with
overlapping half-lives, archeomagnetic dating which utilizes the
meandreings of the magnetic poles, obsidian hydration, fission track,
amino acid racemization, and on and on. There is no circular reasoning
here. the methods are essentially indipendently verifiabe, and a ages
determined from first principles.
Help me out here. Produce one sample of rock that has been dated
by any three of these methods that come within an order of magnitude
of each other. I'll be really glad to see it; I've looked. Perhaps
I just haven't connected with the right information.
By the way, many of the presuppositions of these methods you've
stated have primary flaws in reasoning that invalidates their
results. Such as I've explained in a prior post about radioactive
half life.
Look, an unobserved series of historical events happened. No
transitional species have ever been found (notwithstanding several
publications' attempts to present them from time to time) that
has stood up to scrutiny.
what? just in terms of human evolution, australopithecenes
evolutionarily precede "homo" genera. Within Homo, are a series of
species such as erectus, habilis, and on and on. And if you look at the
dna the relationships are overwellminingly obvious. There is a gradual
change in the dna as you move across the spectrum of life. My dna is
more like a chimpanzee's than the chimpanzee's is like a gorilla's. Put
another way, the dna of a sea squirt is more like mine than it is to a
salmonella bacteria. One must really try hard to not see the
relationships among life.
So you're saying that DNA has been collected from all the skeleton
fragments that were used to construct this tree of descent? I'd
be interested to see that. What is the degree of sequence match
between the australopithecenes skeleton and one of us?
Remember whole hominid skulls fashioned
from one pig's tooth? No? That's because it isn't of general
interest to the evolutionary *scientists*, and thus we still find
Piltdown stories being published in children's 'science' textbooks.
so frauds have occured. they don't negate the theory.
Agreed, they don't. Why are science textbooks publishers so
incredibly sloppy to keep publishing this tripe? Anyone?
Bueller?
Evolution is not science, it's a worldview that fits a set of
religious beliefs and as such is really only a religious
precursor. Certainly not science.
criminently,
??
there is nothing religious about recognizing that the
easiest way to explain biological diversity is random mutations and
selective pressure to create what we have in the world around us.
Others on the forum suggest that religion is all about having
faith in spite of contradictory objective facts. It's also
about creating a story to satisfy deep human spiritual needs.
Myths to give greater meaning and purpose to life. (By the
way, I'm not a religious person)
Evolution is far from the easiest way to explain the diversity
of life, but it is the most convenient.
Best regards... Tim
--
We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.
Tim Brodie, IT Manager:SysAdmin:S/W Developer, DWI California
501 S Idaho St, Suite 190, La Habra, CA 90631 USA
Phone: 310-766-2338 Fax: 562-947-8287 http://www.dwi-california.com
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
