Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

You are just ignorant of the state of modern science. That's not a personal insult.

The proof is nicely compiled in Dawkin's recent book which I referenced. Evolution doesn't know how to make something, but as you said, there is great variation even within a species.

Here is a thought experiment. Suppose elephants needed big tusks to fight other males for the chance to mate with females. Suppose humans came along and killed all the males with big tusks for the ivory trade. The males left would have smaller tusks, and they would pass along their traits to their children.

If evolution were not true, average tusk size would remain the same. The species would remain unchanged by any selection pressure.

If evolution were true, average tusk size would decrease because only small tusked males would reproduce.


In fact, that's exactly what we see, the average tusk size of legally hunted elephants in Africa has decreased.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which is nowhere near an admission.
It's a statement on what would falsify evolution.

An octopus is not a rabbit.
Please do learn something.

Neither debunked nor a religion.

Funny how you'll use one authority to make your argument and ignore all the rest.
So Popper was infallible?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are incorrect John. While the discovery pushes back the origins of the octopus by tens of millions of years, it does not falsify evolution. A rabbit would, since we know rabbits are a modern form, like a dog or a bear.

Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable.

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection. ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since we have octopus fossils then it would appear to obvious.

So much more educated that you post incorrect conclusions and spurious quotes to support your view?
More educated than me?
I'm not after "points".
Hmm on which subjects I wonder...

Regardless, it doesn't make him infallible nor, (as Spidergoat has pointed out), correct in this case.

If you'll check, the octopus fossil discovered isn't a modern octopus.

All?
Any support for that?

Oh, and:

Messiah?
What a curious term.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me guess, you're making assumptions.

 

Really?
Link please.

 

In your thought experiment , that would be the same for creation also. There is no difference. The point is that what ever gets to breed, passes on what it has. That why even in humans there is a variety tall to short, for example.
This has nothing to do with evolution. This need to test out the fittest animal, where did that come from? Where did the need to breed come from. It is not always the biggest, that gets to breed, for some it's how good of a home he can make. So in the DNA how does this information get in the DNA in the first place.
If a single is live some how , how does it know to divide to copy itself. It would have to do this correctly the first time and faster than it dies off.
Where did that ability come from?

 

Like I said

(From YOUR supplied link)
I.e. NOT a modern octopus.

Also
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/octopods_from_the_cretaceous.php

Or
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/octopods_from_the_cretaceous.php

Crackpots 0 - Science & evolution 1

 

Ok I read this on the" Cretaceous Octopus With Ink And Suckers The World's Least Likely Fossils?"
This tells you a couple of things. First off, they were surprised to find so much the same as modern ones. This tells you that they stayed very much the same ( no evolving) over this period of time. They didn't evolve into something that is not an Octopus, it still was an Octopus and very close to the ones we have now. This is against the idea of evolution, and is evidence of creation. If we don't have exactly the same one now, that also could because of extinction , we know of a lot of animals that,that is what happened. So these animals just popped up very old, so when did they have time to evolve? Why are they not evolving now? This is evidence of creation.
You have just proved that evolution did not happen with these animals.

 

So you didn't read it, and you didn't read the subsequent posts.

But they did evolve and also show transitional features.

They fit EXACTLY with evolution.

No it isn't, it's further evidence of evolution.

 

The question is how did these Octopi, evolve to be Octopi, I mean before the time when they we alive. How did they get to be what they are and why did they stay the same , with the same defenses etc. Where is the evolution?
Transitional means the ones between the ' completed' life forms. This means the ones, where they are developing, parts but are not completed. The gross looking things. That probably would not survive very long. And this is why mutations don't really changes things very much, they likely would die off.
This is an example of creation and why evolution is impossible.

 

No it doesn't.

Shown in the transitional forms.

Still wrong...

 

This shows that evolution is not correct.
It also shows why we don't see transitional animals now. They don't evolve. There are changes of size and color etc, but no dog becomes a bear or anything like that. And things are complete, and very much the same as when they first came about.
This does support creation.
DNA is really a centralizing force.It try's to keep things from going too far. Though allowing some variety, and some adapting.

 

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

Yes they do.

No it doesn't.

DNA is not a force.

 

If you have a single cell, with no DNA, how do you eventually get a completed leg? The leg has a thigh bone and shin and ankle and foot and toes.
If I give science that the cell can divide , or copy itself. Science says , that very small changes would happen. So say it produced a little bones material. How did this bones material get into non existing DNA so that it could pass it on? Now there is no shape or anything to suggest a leg is coming. So it is just a chunk of bone material. It might kill the host or if it didn't. What would the next cell do with it. Where would it be placed, what shape should it be? For this leg to work, you need a brain and heart , other bones and muscles and nerves, and lungs and all of that. That would leave a lot of messy looking cells before anything could be construed to be a leg. and then work. But it needs four of them to run and walk.
Evolution is impossible, creation is the only answer.

 

Wrong and wrong.
You're still trolling and still basing everything on wilful ignorance.

 

I am using the same science as you and others do.
It's not the science that is wrong, it is the scientists. It comes down to interpretation, and misdirection. Maybe not intentional , but misleading anyway.

 

No, YOU aren't using science at all.

There's nothing wrong.

And ALL of the misinterpretation and misdirection is on your part.

 

If evolutionists were scientific they wouldn't resort to censorship.

 

If idiots were anywhere near rational they wouldn't have to resort to sock puppets.
Or posting falsehoods
OIM is back. Temporarily.
Goodbye.

 

If people post falsehoods, then scientists use logic and reason to refute them - not censorship.

Only religious fundamentalists and evolutionists resort to censorship.