I will say you were having so much fun with your comparison that I really was having a difficult time trying to figure out where you were going. I read it twice and came up with two possibilities.
To boil it down, you think the thought process was.
The two planes were visually similar
The planes performed the same function
An assumption was made that one was a copy of the other
Q.E.D. the design must have been stolen
Do I have your analogy correctly stated? Let’s get it boiled down correctly before we tear it apart.
I just explained how the notion (theory) of stolen came to be and what ideas, or other proofs were used to form that theory.
I then compared the origins of the Evolutionary theory as having been arrived at in a similar manner. (using different ancillary or supporting proofs which seem to have relevance and standing)
It had nothing to do with the actual, only with the theories that surrounded the actual.
let me propose another theory, based on the evidence of our discussion.
No matter how I try, or what language I use, you will never follow my reasoning or understand my train of thoughts because they are so different and alien to yours. It would be like trying to understand the Chinese language using western syntax and lettering.
I am trying. So just lay out the simple chain of steps for how the conspiracy theory came to be and the proofs offered for it. At this point make no mention of evolution. When you mix the two it does make it hard to follow. As I said I read your initial description twice and came up with two different interpretations.
I don’t want to appear condescending or insulting. I know you are trying.
You can see that the conspiracy theory of the two planes is based on the following (theories)
1 their similarity (visual)
2 knowledge of Russian and European rivalry (proven)
3 Knowledge of Industrial Espionage and counter-espionage ( from other examples)
There is also the conviction that the Russians were incapable to do it themselves
and a sense of the superiority of the Europeans, Brits etc.
Are you happy so far?
The next step will be to “marry” or substitute aspects of the theory of Evolution to the above rationales to show that the theory of Evolution might have conceptual flaws in it. It would then be up to you to decide whether what I claim is being thought, is being thought. (or could be)
Also, any comparison or analogy will be limited in scope. The conception of Evolution is almost certainly more complex than marrying certain theories together. There may be other factors, proofs or mitigations that point towards Evolution that are not covered by this analogy.
Layout as follows:
Evolutionary theory (comparative Conspiracy of the planes)
The theory that a microbe could become a human being over time. (the theory that the design was stolen)
1 there is a proven means of doing it but it has only been proved at a limited level (The existence of espionage and proof that it exists)
2 similarites at the neuclear level (Visual similarites of the two planes)
3 the only paper trail youh have is fossils but they are static. They do not show any transitions as they happen, they are a snapshot of a single creature. And you have to use modern observations to “translate” them (paperwork for the copying is mostly about other copies not this one.)
4 No eye witness of the actual event (no eye witness account of the design process)
IOW the theory is based on coroboritive theories or information, and not empiracle eye-witness evidence.
Darwin’s initial observations only covered diversification. You have no proof that any living thing can develop into a completely different creature. Not then. Not now. It is corroborative only
Life can be? You claim that it does.
Nested hierarchies are still visual similarities whether you like it or not.
Species related? = diversification, not new creatures. 98% of the finches were identical and the differences were only matters of size and proportions.
That Darwin proposed it? So what! someone had to start the idea off. He had less proof than you have now! Would the conspiracy theory carry more weight if it was proposed by the Prime Minister or a meteorologist.? Darwin had absolutely no qualifications in Evolution,but he was a biologist and an observer.
Can you not see that The theory of Evolution relies solely on corroborative theories and evidence? And just because there is no other theory (other than God did it) it stands as fact.
(The conspiratory theory did have an alternative that was decreed fact. otherwise, it too might still hold sway.)
Look, you know I do not agree that this similarity in DNA means what you think it does. But even if it does, it does not prove that there is a method to join the dots (create new creatures from old ones) It is purely corroborative.
You need that proof. If you can’t even change a virus that has a 60 second cyle, how can you claim that time will do what the evidence doesn’t?
And to prove the nested hierarchies you need to show that if a new creature is created it carries enough of the donor DNA to be identified and compared.
You ignore the DNA evidence that is also a paper trail.
Sorry but we see speciation happen in real time. Granted it isn’t human but the principle still stands.
Not “fact”, just the best model that we have. When a better model is proposed this one will be thrown out.
It has been demonstrated that bacteria can evolve new functionality. What more could you want?
Any “new creature” is going to be so nearly identical to the parent as to be nearly indistinguishable. Evolution doesn’t work the way you seem to think that it does.
and beak shape/function and the fact that they didn’t interbreed. Basic definition of a species difference.
You are arguing in circles. One argument for gradual change and the other for a complete change. It is you who is not being consistent, not me.
As I said elsewhere. You cannot:
Describe the necessities of a neutral ancestor for both reptiles and mammals, or how to "build them. Nor can you describe a route from one to the other . You clearly have no idea of the practicalities of your “belief” because that is what it amounts to. It is you, not me who needs to study the practical applications of Evolution and the reciprocation of the theory in practical terms. You need to study physiology and ecology and all the disciplines that so far you have ignored.
Show me a neutral creature who could be the matriarch of Mammals without being one. Show me the progressions. Show me you actually understand what you claim and can demonstrate it beyond your micro-connections and DNA blarney.
That does not describe any progression of note let alone the ability to “create” mammals from anything other than a mammal!
I have had enough of this!
For once you answer my challenges without using the words Not relevant, (or the equivalent)
Evolution is a combination of corroborative theories. (they may or may not be based on empirical data) There is no empirical evidence to prove it can change anything other than a few minor adjustments. No empirical evidence of its grandiose claims of microbe to human. None.
It is an unprovable theory. But because of your definition of theory, that is enough.
Richard
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
115
Evidence is not a scientific rule, so your original statement is confusing.
I would suggest that there is sufficient evidence to support an evolutionary understanding of the development of life on earth. There is a reason why the vast majority of biologists accept evolution as reality, and that’s both from atheists and Christians.
I also dont accept your view that evolution is inherently atheistic. You might as well say Newton’s laws are atheistic because you dont need God to ensure a body continues in motion, it’s just gravity. Which presumably is what Dawkins believes.
Gradual change that over time can result in a large change. Journey of 1000 miles…
Well for mammals that would be reptiles.
For reptiles that would be Tiktaalik or a relative.
It has been done in a quite detailed fashion for example with horses and whales with fossils and DNA. But it doesn’t matter because you simply dismiss the evidence. We could provide papers detailing this but you wouldn’t accept them . It is much more than I care to type out here. And you are confusing me with the professional biologists here. I am very much the layperson.
Theories aren’t proved, they are confirmed, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sigh. I thought we were getting somewhere but you have reverted to the same dogmas and misrepresentations that others have.
No there is such a thing as an impossible leap. Time cannot build a bridge from the earth to the moon.
There is no halfway house between reptile metabolism and Mammalian metabolism. (See above)
Sorry don’t know that one. Who is it supposed to link from? Fish or Amphibean, or something else?
Horses and whales are still mammals. The problems are relatively minor, although why whales devolved back to flippers is an interesting philosophical debate (Other than
function of course)
Just because science treats theories as facts doesn’t make them so. Evolution is taught as a fact and referenced as a fact. I would claim reasonable doubt!
Richard
PS
I would never dare question you qualifications after what has been said about mine.
