Theory of Evolution

I am familiar with the case of equino original was a small animal in south America , as it moved to Asia it evolved into a horse what ever the reasons. Due to some mutation a family have in all children six fingers and so on I can name many more cases , If black man come from Africa and moved into area were there is less intense sun he with generation should reduce its melanin pigmentation.
10 years ago Neanderthal was a subspecies and there could not be an exchange . Now we accept Neanderthal interbreed with modern man , So I am an offspring I don't know you might be a modern man .
There is the classic case of 2 colors of butterfly on the birch three, where the birds selected to eat the white ones . do you want more , to educate me in evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Er ... my post was in response to BoT. It was his claim that evolution is theoretical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You DO know that DaveC's comment was addressed to BoT don't you?
(The clue was given by the fact that he quoted BoT's post).

Dammit, ninja'd...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did not say from our solar system, I said our sun is new and have not gone through a supernova . I see how you mix up things,

And?


What makes you think we didn't have night and day before the collision that produced the Moon?
[/QUOTE]
After a collision you might spin faster ir slower

Like this: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars
[/QUOTE]
Can we ge t a liter if that water to be analysed ?

Why would the collision have anything to do with water on Mars?[/QUOTE]
To see if the collision was really with the earth

 

Everything that makes biology and genetics a science and not just stamp collecting. “Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.” “Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The history of biological evolution of populations is a fact. This natural history includes these factual observations “Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.”
The basic mechanism of the theory evolution was a hypothesis that has survived all tests. “If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.” “The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts. ” The modern synthesis is close to a mathematical theorem of biochemistry: DNA + PHYSICAL REPLICATION MECHANISMS + TIME = EVOLUTION. The success of evolutionary algorithms is a theorem.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

We could, if you have the intellectual chops for it. So far we've seen a distinct failure to engage on your part such that people have misappropriated your thread. Here's some pages about fairly unrealistic models of genetics where the idea of evolution can be tested in seconds rather than centuries.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

That just seems a snobbish and bizzare red herring. The term "better" has no inherit meaning. In science, we assume that "better" means more capable of predicting behavior of phenomena that actually happen. So intelligence and education is certainly no handicap, especially when there are reliable, communicable, precise frameworks for predicting the observations of phenomena. “Opinions have value to the extent that they are informed. If you are suffering serious stomach problems, would you give equal weight to opinions from a professional gastroenterologist and a supermarket bag-boy? When someone speaking on the subject of evolution is woefully uninformed on issues concerning evolution, it is entirely appropriate to point that out.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA012.html

So what is needed is a way to tell truth from lies. Methodological empiricism suggests we test the claims made, because even a good person could repeat lies and even a bad person might have good cause to tell the truth. “Intellectual honesty demands that evidence be followed whether we like the conclusion or not.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010_1.html


Your failure to engage suggests you are a mere propagandist and not a thinker. Care to comment?

 

Perhaps you could be more precise with your wording.
You asked if the Sun had an iron core and then you wrote "In order to have heavy metals higher then Iron the system have to go to a second or third supernova, that is saying that material in the earth have gone more then twice."
There is no need for a "second or third supernova" to provide the heavy elements on Earth.

Quite possibly: but spinning faster or slower still accepts that there was a spin to start with - ergo we already had night and day.

Not so far.

What?
What is now the MOON (not Mars) collided with Earth[1] - how does that relate to water on Mars?

1 Or the Moon was formed from ejecta from Earth. Regardless, Mars wasn't involved so far as we know.

 

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

 

Since everything established in science is "only theoretical", this is the right place to discuss it.

 

Like the Theory of Gravity? The idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is a theory. The Theory of Evolution is no less explanatory than the Germ Theory of Disease. You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

That's theistic evolution and the majority of present day Christian denominations accept some version of it. The Roman Catholics do, as do many of the Protestant denominations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

There are different versions of theistic evolution.

It's possible to argue, as you may or may not be doing, that the origin of life (bacteria?) was a special divine creation event, and that evolution subsequent to that was entirely naturalistic.

Another version of theistic evolution might hold that both the origin of life and its subsequent evolution were naturalistic, while also holding that God is the author of nature. One might want to argue that God, being omniscient, could predict how the universe, once created, would evolve into the future. And being omnipotent, could select suitable "laws" of nature and initial conditions to ensure that things would turn out as God desired.

This second version of theistic evolution is consistent with (actually dependent on) physical determinism and it leaves the universal origin event (the 'big bang'?) as the only special creation event. This version has the advantage (from the theistic perspective) of making everything that happens in the universe the result of God's will, while minimizing any conflicts with science since all physical events remain entirely naturalistic in the scientific sense.

Of course free will (for any natural being apart from God) would be a problem in that kind of scheme, but it already is for the physical determinists. (There have been many threads arguing about free will on "scientific" terms right here on Sciforums.) And the problem of evil would be another problem, but that problem exists in any theology that emphasizes God's omnipotence, omniscience and absolute goodness. Again, it isn't a problem unique to this kind of theistic evolution.

 

When will I learn. It's like talking to a JW.

 

Don't worry, just take some science classes.

Exactly!
But what you're confused about is who is the "JW" in this exchange.
Who's the one making claims that they can't - or won't - support?
Who's the one saying science is wrong and the "supernatural" exists?

 

How can toilets flush the same way in Australia when most people think that toilets flush the opposite way in the southern hemisphere?
How can antibiotics work when 54% of the population think they kill viruses?
How can evolution be true when 56% of the population think that early humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs?

Popular belief is a very poor way of deciding which science claims are valid.

Indeed! And yet it has never happened.

I think that would be great! Think of all the new stuff we could learn. It's just very, very unlikely.

 

Some one like Henry Stapp is well aware of the limitation of the research re presenitment. All I say is that there is growing 'evidence' from a big picture point of view to say in some way that Mind is primary (maybe it's nonsense) but it's worth investing some thought (scientifically) on the subject.

 

Oh look.
Yet another claim that there's evidence and yet another complete failure to present it.
Why is it worth investing scientific thought on the subject?
Is there any actual hard evidence to suggest that there's anything worth looking at?

 

That's been helpful; somehow I have to pump up my slightly flat evidence. I suppose I've been looking into the sky & watching arrows. Eg. 15 years ago it was a joke to talk of Quantum biology & now it's 'fact', there seems so many things like this but of course that's not how science works. Perhaps I am in fairy land. Thank's again. (I'll cuddle up to Depak Chop instead). Cheers.

 

Nope: you have to find and present some evidence.

Right.
Because 1944[1] was only 15 years ago, wasn't it?

You haven't given any indication so far that you have any clue how it works.

Oh wait. Your reference to quantum biology being a "joke" until 15 years ago wouldn't be some reference to Chopra's claims/ misunderstandings/ absolute tripe about the role of quantum physics in biology would it?
If that was what you meant then I'm afraid to say that "quantum biology" as espoused by Chopra is still a joke. The guy is either utterly clueless or a complete fraud.
And, in point of fact, he has admitted that when he (mis)uses the term "quantum" he doesn't mean it in the sense as accepted by scientists.


1 Schrödinger's What is Life? Followed slightly later by Bohr, Jordan, Delbruck... Or Löwdin effectively kick-starting it as "separate" field in 1963.

 

A small point; I watched a video called Hammeroff the scunk at an atheist conference; this is where I saw them laugh at 'Quantum Biology'. You have chopped off my arms & one leg. I had a phase some years ago where I changed my self image to being a 'bit of a dill' perhaps I was right. I still have the picture in my 'head' that I arrived at 'on my own', hardly read any books bla bla (mystical thinking) over the last 20 years that oddly enough it's the same picture that people like Ervin Laslo etc. etc. have. Perennial intuition; perhaps we're all wrong. Please leave my last leg on.

 

Except Deepak Chopra is bullshitting you about the quantum world. He uses these buzzwords in fanciful ways that make no sense.

 

Nope.
You didn't see them laugh at quantum biology: you may, however, have seen them laugh at Hameroff's ridiculous claims (including unsupported a priori assumptions a perhaps wilful misinterpretation of the science he calls upon) and ramblings about quantum effects on biology (one is science, the latter is woo).
I.e. he essentially espoused Chopra's crap, not quantum biology.

So far - yep.

And that should be a slight clue for you: holding the same views as known cranks means that you to are a crank.

There's "wrong" (as in subject to amendment), wrong (as in incorrect) and not even wrong.
The last is far worse than any other way of being wrong.
And at present that's where you've planted your flag.
Time for your wheelchair application to go in ...