21
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + +
→Evolution of whales
:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
:::I'm afraid Karajou's analogies are somewhat inadequate. The theory of evolution is a lot more specific than posing an argument that one thing transformed into another. In fact, the theory is less about the 'states' and more about the 'process'. The theory, whatever one may think of it, does put forward a biological mechanism which is plausible insofar as it is at least theoretically possible based upon our knowledge of DNA, reproduction etc. But the argument about 'proof' is also lacking. The aim is not and never has been to amass tonnes of evidence until we can reach some mythical point and declare 'evolution is fact'. Science is not built upon that notion; it is built upon the hypothetico-deductive method, as outlined by Karl Popper. The aim is to try and ''dis''prove the theory. My aim is simply to clear up the philosophical issues, not to come down on either side of the evolutionist -vs- intelligent design debate. [[User:Brit1909|Brit1909]] 18:32, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::To disagree with you slightly, my analogy is completely adequate. What I have cited above is ''hearsay evidence'', which is what the ''process'' of evolution is based on; what we have in the mainstream is an explanation of the process based on an ''interpretation'' of fossil evidence, and all based on nothing more than the word of the scientist. We have to accept his word that it happened in the way he described it. Unfortunately, the concept has gone beyond theory; there are too many scientists, professors, and teachers who demand we accept evolution not as a theory, ''but as an established fact''. A frog evolving into a fish is just as much based on hearsay as a housefly evolving into a house. We recognize that evolution is simply a false theory; in fact, it violates every step of the scientific method as well as common sense. This site intends to explain it properly and tell it to the public. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 3 March 2011 (EST)
::::: I am afraid that this discussion has wandered well away from the point that I was trying to make in the original post. I wasn't saying that evolution ought to be accepted. That surely is an argument for elsewhere. I was saying that ''in evolutionary terms'' there appears to be a plausible path for the whale. That being so, it makes no sense to talk about a failure to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path. The reason they don't address it is because, within the terms of their theory, there is already an explanation. You might as well criticise evolutionary scientists for their failure to address the lack of a plausible path for mice, oxen, cockatoos, deer, slugs and fleas as much as whales on the basis that is being argued above. I suggest that the item be removed from the list. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 20:26, 3 March 2011 (EST)