Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?

Everything becomes elitist once taken for granted. But that does not necessarily mean it is completely false. The theory of evolution, though supported by many closed-minded individuals, was founded by very open-minded individuals. But open minds can only hold so much, so we must have more of them to further the theory and reveal more of its truth and discard more of its untruth.

There is no heirarchy in evolution, only seemingly limitless variables. If something dies and is does not produce offspring, then you can look at it as being the fault of the environment, not that it is defective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Natural selection occurs within syngameons, such as that llamas, camels and alpacas can "interbreed," to produce offsping, and those are of different so-called species, so species is obviously a meaningless term, maintained to make nonsensical demarcations amongst amimals to confuse the issue, the issue being, what are the extents of the syngameons?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Repeating the same thing over an over does not make it any less nonsensical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now you know how billions feel when the hear the tired old Darwinian drone.

 

Billions? Would those be the same "billions" who believe an invisible entity waved his magic hand and created the universe?

Yeah, that's far more logical an explanation.

 

The syngameons, as you define them, extend beyond the species level. We share an unexpectedly large percentage of genes with every lifeform on Earth, which means that all life is one "syngameon". Every creature is a relative, distant or near, of every other creature. Llamas and camels separated from each other comparatively recently. Given enough time, they would no longer be able to breed. There are exeptions to the species rule about breeding, because the classification system is a human invention. If there are no real species, there are no real transitional animals. Or, to say it another way, every individual life form is an example of transitioning to a greater or lesser degree, based on the stability of the ecosystem.

 

Ice, read some Richard Dawkins, then you might understand evolution science far better than you seem to now.

 

...otherwise you may become so bereft of a credible ideology that you lapse into 'Ted Haggardism'

 

I think Ice could be Kent Hovind.

 

Wow - that's some rap sheet!

I mention Haggard not in terms of his private life (which is his and private - I make no value judgement here) but rather as the outspoken critic who, when faced with the honourable Mr. Dawkins, lapsed into a pique of rage and demanded he left the premises. He was unable to sustain a cogent argument in his criticism of the benefit Darwinism has made to the scientific method.

 

Then maybe you should drop your arrogant act and step up to the plate. With your expertise maybe some people here could learn something. But it's never gonna happen if you keep up with the insults.

 

It's experience derived from dealing with IceAgeCivilizations. Induction as a scientific method may be dead, but it is still useful in dealing with people.

IceAge is a dead end. Best that he simply be ignored.

But, you go ahead, you'll learn eventually.

 

Ice: Starting with a picture of your parents, then your grandparents and then your grandparents parents and so on... all the way back to your first ancestor, what would you expext to see? Humans just like us in every snapshot?

 

Something like the Geico "caveman," we got some decent looking people in the family eventually.

 

basically all biomedical research is based on Darwin's theory of evolution. It allowed to research how things work on other organisms and use that knowledge on humans. That would make no sense were it not for the theory of evolution.

Of course nobody notices it nowadays that it would make no sense to do this without the theory of evolution because the entire field of modern biology is based on the theory of evolution.

Hence people (normal people) think it is normal to do biology this way because they got used to it. It isn't. It is a specific approach based on evolution. Hence we made so much progress.

 

Then how were medical breakthroughs achieved pre Darwinism?

Since supposed Darwinian morphing has never been observed (it's always merely genetic variation within syngameons), Darwinism has zero predictive value, and so, has zero role in the study of organisms.

Aurochs naturally selected as various types of cattle, which can all interbreed, the cattle did not evolve from the auroch, as they are part of the syngameon which includes the auroch, that has shown variation naturally, and by breeding programs.

Normal people understand that goo couldn't have possibly morphed into you, despite your wish that people would be so gullible.

 

If you represent the thought processes of ordinary people all I can say is "Praise the Lord I am abnormal".

Your studied indifference to facts; your persistent failure to understand simple concepts, either through gross stupidity, or blatant intellectual dishonesty; your continual refusal to properly answer direct questions; your tactics of constantly changing the subject, or merely repeating the mantras of devolved stupidity, such as 'people didn't come from goo'; together these constitute an absurd violation of the human intellect and abuse of your cerebral powers. If there is a God, I have no doubt (no matter how much He loves you) that he would be deeply offended by your stupidity and dishonesty. I know I am.

 

Luck.

Would you really like to be treated by a 'pre-Darwin' doctor?

 

Hey Ophi, you say I don't "properly" answer questions, well duh, since you don't agree with my answers, it is about your speed to call them not "properly" answered, I'm so sorry that my answers don't conform to your Darwinist/Lyellian propaganda!!

If you want a rubber stamp for your zany ideas, don't look to me for that.

 

Pre Darwin doctors were 150 years ago.