Kindly stop trying to teach me science. You can try and teach parts of Evolutionary theory that I was not taught, but I have a very firm grounding in all sciences, Physics, Biology and Chemistry, which is why I see through your attempts to shore up evolution with erroneous scientific principles.
You and I both know that the term “theory” has specific scientific meaning that is not exactly the same as the common or garden usage. And you acknowledge that evolution is taught as fact and its conclusion incorporated into all discussions or information on natural identities and diversities. The Evolutionary history is announced as if there is no possible doubt.
I point out possible problems but you just refuse to believe that there even could be any.
We can derive testable hypotheses from the theory of evolution. I just showed you one. You refuse to accept this as science. Why? How is it not a hypothesis? How is it not scientific?
There could be problems with the theory, but that does not make every potential problem dreamt up by every person an actual problem. You just refuse to accept that you could be wrong, even when you are shown to be wrong. You claimed that birds are so finely tuned that they couldn’t be missing two flight feathers and still be able to fly. I show you a flying bird missing way more than two flight feathers, and you don’t budge. You claim that no species could be viable if it adopts a lifestyle of climbing trees and gliding after jumping off that tree. I show you a species of flying squirrel that does just that, and you don’t budge. You claimed that a bird species has to have an aerodynamic tail and large sternum in order to be viable. I show you Archaeopteryx that has neither of those things and you don’t budge. You claim that irreducibly complex systems can’t evolve. I show you the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear and you don’t budge. You are wrong at every step, so why should biologists consider your claims to be a problem for the theory?
And I told you that I was talking of specific flight feathers. The ones used by aviaries and Zoos to keep their birds from flying away!
The wings od a flying fox are much less bulky and far more flexible. The skin folds down to virtually nothing. The two systems are not comparable. Your example fails
The actual conversation was about how much of a bird Archaeopterix was. Not whether it could fly or not.
I have never cited the ear as irreducible. it is comparably simple with three basic components. Now if you want to break down the avian metabollic systems as opposed to the reptilian one I would be more impressed (See your criterias with feathers)
IOW i claim that your answers do not fully address the problems. (Which is why I claim you fobb them off). I am not convinced that you have a full grasp of physiology (or ecology) and therefore do not fully understand my challenges.
I might be maligning you, but your answers do not show a deep understanding.
Those were the ones that were missing. Aviaries and zoos clip almost all of the flight feathers.
See? You just reject it when people show that you are wrong. You just continually move the goal posts.
If it isn’t a flying species then you really need to explain why it has flight feathers.
I did, because it is irreducible. We have the evolutionary steps that led to the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. You just ignore it and keep claiming IC systems can’t evolve without any evidence to back up your claim.
Scientists also have very firm grounding in physics, biology, and chemistry, and the great majority accept that established scientific principles lead to acceptance of evolution.
No, but if you’re not a mechanic, telling all the existing mechanics in the world, as well as the car manufacturing companies, the automobile designers, the publishers of car magazines, and the auto safety regulators, that they don’t know what a car is or how it works – that takes a bit of hubris.
That’s exactly what you’re doing when you tell evolutionary biologists that what they’re doing isn’t scientific.
You have yet to even make an effort to understand the arguments.
Something is properly called scientific fact when as a result of consistent evidence from many sources it becomes one of the routine tools of scientific research. This is the case with special and general relativity, quantum mechanics and field theory, and evolutionary biology. It goes beyond scientific fact to more general fact when it becomes a routine tool not only in scientific investigation but also technology and practical applications. This certainly applies to special relativity, quantum mechanics and field theory, as well as evolutionary biology. Only in the case of general relativity are the technological and practical applications too few for this to apply. You could even say the same for special relativity except that it is an integral part of quantum field theory.
In the case of evolutionary biology, the applications are in medicine and agriculture including treatment for weeds, pathogens, and parasites, the design of agricultural breeding programs, conservation, resource management. Evolutionary algorithms are also used to solve difficult problems in math, engineering, industry, robot movement, and finance. But perhaps the most important of all is that it is our key to understanding the genetic code which promises countless application to transform the future of all mankind.
In the case of Biology, not Evolutionary Biology. There is virtually no benefit in guessing heredity.
to prove evolution.
They are derived from mathematics not a problem solver. The algorithms came first.
Again, understanding genetic code is a means of testing Evolution. Decoding relies on having a live (or recently dead subject. Algorithmic comparisons do not decode DNA.
Methinks you are overselling Evolutionary influence.
I can see no advantage to knowing that you are related to a Neanderthal, or that a reptile may have sprouted feathers, or even that a fish walked out of the sea. So tell me, in precise terms, what does Evolution bring to the practical scientific table?
Before evolutionary theory, biology was just a science of observation with no theoretical aspect to it at all. In any case the applications I listed were not applications of Biology in general but specifically that of the theory of evolution.
I wouldn’t say there is no benefit to guessing heredity, for while family resemblance is far from accurate it is not completely without value. But heredity is now a science with hard evidence in the genetic code.
to listening to creationist propaganda.
what do you know… I can do that too. Altering your sentences to say what I want. Is that a game you like to play?
??? The applications of Darwin’s principles to the use of computers in solving problems came before Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859 and before the first computer capable of running algorithms in 1948???
Methinks you are bending over so far backwards to force your ideological rhetoric on us that your eyes are stuck in the middle ages.
This is like saying you see no advantage of telescopes which can see a woman undressing in her bedroom from a mile away. How in the world can we KNOW that we are related to Neanderthals? It is because it is right there in the genetic code for anyone to read. The point is that we now have the ability to read the genetic code and understand what it means! You are like the illiterate man pointing at the written Bible and calling it meaningless chicken scratches, just because he doesn’t like what it says.
You admit Evolution is theory but fail to explain how this theory benefits.
Medicine.How?
Treatment of weeds, pathogens and parasites. How does Evolution help? What possible use is there in knowing where they come from in terms of history?
There is no practical use.
So genetics benefist Evolution, not Evolution benefits genetics.
Sorry, but you have not shown any actual benefits of Evolution. All you have shown is how evolutionary theory intersects with other sciences.
Admit??? It is a theory NOT an hypothesis – uncertainty has NOTHING to do with it. Just like relativity and quantum are theories NOT hypotheses. All of these have been tested repeatedly and thus established as fact. The word “theory” means it provides a means of explaining a wide variety of phenomenon including phenomenon we haven’t even encountered yet. Thus it provides a theoretical science which predicts and explains rather than just recording observations. The same for relativity and quantum physics, evolution is scientific and general fact because of its use as a general tool in science and technology.
You repeat tired old meaningless rhetoric and tell lies.
Why do you demand what is already provided right there in front of you? Good example of selective blindness. The treatment of pathogens and parasites is part of medicine. Evolution is essential for understanding how they change over time.
Incorrect. Evolution is the Rosetta stone for understanding the meaning of the genetic code.
You whine about DNA comparisons telling us the extent of our relationship to the Neanderthals as if this were a bad thing. But the fact is that the DNA can tell us this means the information is there in the DNA for us to read – as powerful as a telescope no matter what you use it for. You credit evolution with this because you already see how evolution plays this role of Rosetta stone in understanding the genetic code.
It is now very well established that DNA IS NOT just a blueprint of how to make these organisms (as if they were a product of design) but rather a record of the mutations showing how all the species evolved from a common ancestor. Most of it has no functional role in the organism itself because of this.