Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:21 pm
Analogies are used in evolution all the time. They can be used in contrast with homologies... Nothing new here..angel wrote:Yes, please. I would appreciate it.
http://virtuallaboratory.net/Biofundame ... -5_Evo.htm
Or biologists that support your claims.. If not, their scientific background is questionable according to your terms it seems...I did not say they are totally unscientific.
However, as when discussing about ID I like to let IDs define what ID is, now I prefer to keep stuck to what biologists say about biology. It usually helps in preventing strawmen.
They may be correct and totally scientific. If so they are reporting faithfully the claims of biologists. In that case I prefer to discuss biologists' claims directly.
No, I'm not talking about totally different organisms with no similarities...We share a lot with escherichia coli!
Most of the basic biochemical structures and mechanisms, for instance.
Please, be explicit.
Are you claiming that you can produce evidences of totally different organismswith no similarities?
This (for example organisms based on right handsided amminoacids) would be enough evidence to disprove the common ancestro theory (though maybe not to disprove a common ancestor between humans and chimps).
Please if you have such data, I would be more than happy to consider it.
By saying "clear", as an example with chimps, can you explain why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24? Or that the "mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences in chimpanzees are more variable than those in humans (1-3)? A recent study has examined a 10,154-base pair sequence on the chimpanzee X chromosome and found that sequence variability is four times greater in chimpanzees than humans (4), indicating a last common ancestor at least three times earlier than humans."We are discussing because we strongly disagree on what "clear" means.
Fossil records are not the unique nor the most direct argument in favor of common ancestor scenario. The clearest argument today are coming from genetics of living lifeforms.
And they are becoming stronger and stronger.
For example we can directly compute on a purely genetic basis how long ago we shared our common ancestors with chimps (gorilla, ...).
The genetic dating is pretty good agreeing with the known fossil record dating. The record may be lacking and incomplete but there is no way in which you can show this agreement to be necessary if the designer created humans and chimps independently.
I'm not saying that you cannot force your creationist scenario with it (goddidit argument is perfect) I'm just saying that you have to assume that your designer decided to do so for some unknown reason, while the "coincidence" is perfectly predicted by evolution.
Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/originnews.html
Who ever said that science was a democracy? Also why are some evolutionist saying that life could have began from aliens from outer space? Why? Are they not credible scientists either?Well. the point is exactly this. In science the final judge is not the individual but the experiment/observation.
It is something it should be decided by observing nature and evaluating arguments.
Science is not a democracy in which you are free to think that the Earth stands still and the sun goes around.
As you have stated before... "Scientific knowledge about origins of life is quite approximate and yet not based on solid ground.' If it is not based on scientific solid ground, then it is questionable science.. Not a fact...Of course you are free to believe what you please (as a friend of mine likes to say) but when you do it you are not doing science anymore.
Here we are discussing about science (and faith), I supposed.
In any event, that was what I meant by "some *scientific* argument".
Likes or dislikes?? Are you implying that true science is based your belief system? While I don't agree with that, I would agree that scientist can be biased (at times) in their scientific explanations..Do you mean the origins of species or the origin of life all together?
And in any case, what do you mean by you are against science in that case?
Science is simply enumerating and weighting evidences.
One cannot be against mathematics when one gets to the multiplications by 7!
One is free not to use mathematics, but I cannot understand how one can be "against" mathematics.
As I said, I don't think that one necessarily needs to believe or to care about what science claims. But likes or dislikes are not among the arguments which should be used to judge science scientifically.
Oh, obviously some scientist believe that we had a common ancestor. But can you tell us who that common ancestor was?There is no debate in the scientific community about common ancestor.
And the public debate is irrelevant to science.
I wish I could believe that... Unfortunately scientist are humans that can be socially biased in both camps (to certain degrees).I hope we agree that science is a self contained discipline with its own laws and procedures
which are and have to be disconnected by social issues.
They have been singing that song for years... In the future we will have it all figured out.. Just give us more time.. And more money..The problem is simply that despite what you think, there is no scientifc doubt about the fact that we share a common ancestor with chimps.
And there won't be any doubt in the future.
No, of course not, please re-read my posts.. My case is just for ID as to origins. There is NO solid proof of that either. So? We will probably be questioning these things for the rest of eternity.. Who gives a flying banana.. Just let ID and evolution breath together.. It's just speculation in both camps.. I don't see any problems with people being allowed to question either side.. Neither sides are completely factual when it comes to origins...Moreover, to use your own words, we have not in yet nothing. We have no final answer about gravity, about cosmology, about quantum mechanics, etc.
We do not even know if we will ever have a final answer.
Are you suggesting that we should suspend teaching these as well?