to the atheists on the board

Neo-Darwinsim "requires" basically two driving forces:

1. Natural selection - survival of the fittest.
2. Genetic selection through mutuations.

The curious thing is that one would expect #2 to be the least controversial. After all, genetics is on the surface one the least subjective categories within the biological sciences. But in reality the controversy is exactly in the area.

Many biologist doubt or want to substantially modify #2. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they don't believe in evolution.

But my point is that traditional Darwinism is hurting and hurting badly. It is struggling to explain many of the most basic of the latest genetic discoveries....
 
Here's another one: geneticists, much to their dismay I am sure, found that Neanderthal and modern man do not share a common ancestor in recent history. Their genetics diverge. Again, Neo-Darwinists are left scratching their heads...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

But my point is that traditional Darwinism is hurting and hurting badly. It is struggling to explain many of the most basic of the latest genetic discoveries....
More...

Please. What's hurting is the idea that a super being that has not left one shred of physical evidence is believed to have created the universe in six days. (Before the concept of "day" was created, btw. A very neat trick.) Saying Darwinism/Evolution Theory is somehow hurting because the nuances of genetics are not understood perfectly is like saying General Relativity is invalid because the gauge boson for gravity has not been detected. It's nonsense. The theory still perfectly well describes the universe as we see it. Any other interpretation without emprical evidence is irrational.
 
Tell us what would constitute the "shred" of evidence you are talking about.

Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

Please. What's hurting is the idea that a super being that has not left one shred of physical evidence is believed to have created the universe in six days. (Before the concept of "day" was created, btw. A very neat trick.) Saying Darwinism/Evolution Theory is somehow hurting because the nuances of genetics are not understood perfectly is like saying General Relativity is invalid because the gauge boson for gravity has not been detected. It's nonsense. The theory still perfectly well describes the universe as we see it. Any other interpretation without emprical evidence is irrational.
More...
 
Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

Please. What's hurting is the idea that a super being that has not left one shred of physical evidence is believed to have created the universe in six days. (Before the concept of "day" was created, btw. A very neat trick.) Saying Darwinism/Evolution Theory is somehow hurting because the nuances of genetics are not understood perfectly is like saying General Relativity is invalid because the gauge boson for gravity has not been detected. It's nonsense. The theory still perfectly well describes the universe as we see it. Any other interpretation without emprical evidence is irrational.
More...

I didn't mean hurting in the sense of biologists are flocking to leave evolution - that's clearly NOT the case! But traditional Neo-Darwinism fueled by genetics is hurting for explanations.
 
Notice that instead of supporting the ID hypothesis,
the theists simply CONTINUE TO ATTACK SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION.

They only make it more and more painfully clear that they
have NO CASE for their ID position.

Its glaringly obvious.


We still await for ANY evidence for the ID hypothesis.
For the 1000th time, ***attacks on evolution DO NOT constitute
evidence for ID! ****

peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

Notice that instead of supporting the ID hypothesis,
the theists simply CONTINUE TO ATTACK SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION.

They only make it more and more painfully clear that they
have NO CASE for their ID position.

Its glaringly obvious.
More...

This is semantics. Life is "designed" by any human definition: life is clearly self-ordering and self-organizing by almost any reasonable definition

Again, the question is therefore: was there intelligence and/or intervention behind this "design"?
 
Fine.... lets call it ALL designed. Just semantics.
Evolution is then a theory of "natural design".

But this doesnt change anything.
Again the question remains...

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE for ID????



peace

axeman




Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

This is semantics. Life is "designed" by any human definition: life is clearly self-ordering and self-organizing by almost any reasonable definition

Again, the question is therefore: was there intelligence and/or intervention behind this "design"?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top