"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Actually, no, Darwinian evolution is based on knowledge acquired through observation. This is the definition of science! Faith doesn't come into it.Gman wrote:Oh, not this argument again.. Like Darwinian evolution has the monopoly on science? It's not faith based? Please..
National Socialism followed Darwian thought to its logical conclusions...ManOfScience wrote:Actually, no, Darwinian evolution is based on knowledge acquired through observation. This is the definition of science! Faith doesn't come into it.Gman wrote:Oh, not this argument again.. Like Darwinian evolution has the monopoly on science? It's not faith based? Please..
Sorry, Darwinism is not science. It's a religious faith based philosophy... No one was there to witness it occurring.ManOfScience wrote:Actually, no, Darwinian evolution is based on knowledge acquired through observation. This is the definition of science! Faith doesn't come into it.Gman wrote:Oh, not this argument again.. Like Darwinian evolution has the monopoly on science? It's not faith based? Please..
No - it followed an odd perception of artifical selection to its "logical" conclusion.B. W. wrote: National Socialism followed Darwian thought to its logical conclusions...
What on earth do you mean, "No one was there?" It's occurring NOW! Open your eyes, and you just might see it! There are plenty of examples of where evolution can be seen in action: isolated lakes, Madagascar*, even in petri dishes in the lab.Gman wrote:No one was there to witness it occurring.
Open your eyes... Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence for Darwinism. It's simply a belief or an assumption.ManOfScience wrote:What on earth do you mean, "No one was there?" It's occurring NOW! Open your eyes, and you just might see it! There are plenty of examples of where evolution can be seen in action: isolated lakes, Madagascar*, even in petri dishes in the lab.Gman wrote:No one was there to witness it occurring.
* Absolutely fantastic place. I can't recommend it highly enough, if you want to see some of the world's unique wildlife.
I know you'd find a way to discredit or disbelieve it even if it were directly under your nose, but, anyway, here are two pieces of empirical evidence for you:Gman wrote:ManOfScience wrote:Gman wrote:Unfortunately there is no empirical evidence for Darwinism. It's simply a belief or an assumption.
In one case it's an example of adaptation and in the other mutation but, after 40,000 generations, bacteria remained bacteria. Classic micro-evolution, nothing new there.ManOfScience wrote:I know you'd find a way to discredit or disbelieve it even if it were directly under your nose, but, anyway, here are two pieces of empirical evidence for you:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... petri-dish
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2009-10-18
Ah, so it's an example of speciation you want. Here's one:Byblos wrote:In one case it's an example of adaptation and in the other mutation but, after 40,000 generations, bacteria remained bacteria. Classic micro-evolution, nothing new there.
I certainly hope you're not hanging your speciation hopes on the link you provided. Let me quote a small paragraph:ManOfScience wrote:Ah, so it's an example of speciation you want. Here's one:Byblos wrote:In one case it's an example of adaptation and in the other mutation but, after 40,000 generations, bacteria remained bacteria. Classic micro-evolution, nothing new there.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/939
Do you see what this is saying? Basically that the mating habits of the different groups of flies are dependent on the their respective host plants. Once a group adapts to its new host, evidence shows that it will stop (maybe) mating with the other group; the article calls it near-complete premating barrier). Re-introduce one group to its old host and given enough time for re-adaptation, what do you think the result will be?Two host-associated traits have been shown to be primarily responsible for isolating R. pomonella group flies. First, because Rhagoletis adults court and mate exclusively on or near the fruit of their host plants (PROKOPY et al. 1971 Down, PROKOPY et al. 1972 Down), differences in host preference behaviors translate directly into mate choice decisions and premating isolation (PROKOPY et al. 1988 Down; FEDER et al. 1994 Down). Mark-release recapture experiments have indicated that host-specific mating partially isolates the apple and hawthorn races of R. pomonella, reducing gene flow to ~4—6%/generation (FEDER et al. 1994 Down, FEDER et al. 1998 Down). In comparison, host-specific mating appears to constitute a near-complete premating barrier between the sibling species R. pomonella and R. mendax (FEDER and BUSH 1989A Down).
Cute? Maybe (eye of the beholder). Evidence of speciation? Hardly.ManOfScience wrote:Although I still say the lemurs of Madagascar have to be the cutest example.
How is it that, when Madagascar separated from India, all the lemurs knew to get on the Malagasy side of the split? Did King Julien XIII draw a line in the sand and say, "Right! All lemurs remain on this side of the line, please!"?Byblos wrote:Cute? Maybe (eye of the beholder). Evidence of speciation? Hardly.
Do Lemurs really follow other Lemurs off a clifftouchingcloth wrote:Not to mention the mass migration of marsupials (I guess they used to master boat-makers, but gradually lost the skill) to Oz.
Well, there goes Darwinian theory of survival of the species out the door…touchingcloth wrote:No sure, but I know that lemmings do - computer games told me.