Evolution is Unscientific
- Thread starter SufiPhilosophy
- Start date
- Status
An example?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
"A substantial minority of vaDoma have a condition known as ectrodactyly in which the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned in, resulting in the tribe being known as the "two-toed" or "ostrich-footed" tribe."
en.wikipedia.org
Vadoma - Wikipedia
Right. So they are a new species. They cannot interbreed with human beings?"A substantial minority of vaDoma have a condition known as ectrodactyly in which the middle three toes are absent and the two outer ones are turned in, resulting in the tribe being known as the "two-toed" or "ostrich-footed" tribe."
Vadoma - Wikipedia
View attachment 4559
So the OP issue is not genetic mutation, which obviously does happen within species, but whether or not it can be demonstrated by evidence to be the cause of origination of new species. Can micro-evolution within species be demonstrated by evidence to be the cause of eventual macro-evolution leading to new species?
It's a scientific assumption and there are scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and others who do not not agree that random chance is the cause of the universe. Everything is open to falsification. Scientists like Tom van Flanderen look at alternative theories to Einstein's gravity, and the speed of gravity, as a source of dark matter and dark energy.
Science is open to question and falsification. Abiogensis and speciation by genetic mutation are a result of the need to show that the universe and intelligent life are the result of random chance. There is still no evidence for either. There may be more to it, and honest scientists will acknowledge that, imo
There can be no chance calculation from the fact of a single occurrence, but after 1.5 billion years of prokaryote bacterial life on early earth, something happened which had never happened even once in all that time before -- and which has never happened again in all the following 2.7 billion years – although the opportunity has continued to exist for it to happen again and again, zillions of times over.
The ’miracle’ event was when a bacteria combined with an archea by endobiosis to give rise to the ‘modern’ eukaryotic cell. It happened only once, and without it there would be no higher life on earth. Bacteria and archea continue to swarm daily in staggering numbers, but they have never even once again combined to originate a eukaryote cell. It was a one-off, once only occurrence in the entire 4.2 billion year history of life on earth.
This is fully accepted as current mainstream science, to the best of my knowledge.
It's a scientific assumption and there are scientists like Rupert Sheldrake and others who do not not agree that random chance is the cause of the universe. Everything is open to falsification. Scientists like Tom van Flanderen look at alternative theories to Einstein's gravity, and the speed of gravity, as a source of dark matter and dark energy.
Science is open to question and falsification. Abiogensis and speciation by genetic mutation are a result of the need to show that the universe and intelligent life are the result of random chance. There is still no evidence for either. There may be more to it, and honest scientists will acknowledge that, imo
There can be no chance calculation from the fact of a single occurrence, but after 1.5 billion years of prokaryote bacterial life on early earth, something happened which had never happened even once in all that time before -- and which has never happened again in all the following 2.7 billion years – although the opportunity has continued to exist for it to happen again and again, zillions of times over.
The ’miracle’ event was when a bacteria combined with an archea by endobiosis to give rise to the ‘modern’ eukaryotic cell. It happened only once, and without it there would be no higher life on earth. Bacteria and archea continue to swarm daily in staggering numbers, but they have never even once again combined to originate a eukaryote cell. It was a one-off, once only occurrence in the entire 4.2 billion year history of life on earth.
This is fully accepted as current mainstream science, to the best of my knowledge.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Sorry I'm no expert, but Wikipedia seems to regard this as interbreeding between archaic and modern human beings? It's not like interbreeding between two diverse species, such as cats and dogs?Not yet. Did not we interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans?
Template:Human timeline - Wikipedia
EDIT: I apologise if I have been using the word 'species' wrongly in a scientific context. I mean it in the sense of 'family' which cannot interbreed with others
Whatever ...
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Or at some early stage the ancestor of chimps went its own separate way from the ancestor of humans? It's not as if chimps became humans over time. The tree divided into the ancestors of chimps and the ancestors of humans, who went on to develop separately?
Or rather, that is how the science of human evolution proposes that it happened?
The Missing Link
And was random genetic mutation the cause of it? The OP does not deny natural selection in itself.
I'm not too sure of myself with this biological stuff, however ...
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
There is no missing link.
"However, it has fallen out of favor with anthropologists because it implies the evolutionary process is a linear phenomenon and that forms originate consecutively in a chain. Instead, last common ancestor is preferred since this does not have the connotation of linear evolution, as evolution is a branching process.
There is no singular missing link. The scarcity of transitional fossils can be attributed to the incompleteness of the fossil record."
Correct
wil
UNeyeR1
For some no evidence is enough...
For others "no evidence" is enough.
Discussing this topic with theists is a waste of time.
For others "no evidence" is enough.
Discussing this topic with theists is a waste of time.
wil
UNeyeR1
Yes...that response is exactly the reason I mean.
wil
UNeyeR1
21st century science analyses a miniscule small part of the mechanism of the known universe for the 4% of the material universe that we are able to perceive via our human animals senses and our truly wonderful scientific instruments that are able to extend the reach of our animal senses.
Man cannot comprehend a ten-trillionth of a single living cell of a single blade of grass, yet in the absence of some superior alien species regards himself as the highest intelligence in the known universe?
Last edited:
- Status