Evolutionary theory hinders scientific progress.

[Cliffracer RIP]

Me, I'm somewhere between ID and Darwin's theory.

I think that the basic framework was Intelligently Designed, beacause the arguments against Irreducable Complexity are frankly lousy for the most part and backed up with not one shred of evidence.

Nobody has ever given one shred of evidence how any machine-like construction, of multiple parts has assembled itself, without the need for an Intelligent Designer of some sort.

It's all right to say, well the ear evolved from jaw bones and all that blah, but the point remains that the original setup had to function in order for that functionality to be selected.

However, once the basic framework is laid down, Natural Selection, can do the job of improving it and adapting it to the enviroments the creature comes into contact with, within the Intelligently Designed framework that was originally established.

 

[Stripe]

Why do you sit on the fence? Doesn't it really hurt?

 

[bob b]

Via random mutations and natural selection.

Evolutionary theory in a nutshell (or is it nuthouse?).

 

[Stripe]

Via random mutations and natural selection.

Ah. Randomutashinanaturollseylecshundiddit.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You know the answer. It is a huge anti-Christian anti-God conspiracy.

Tell me - why do you (I should say we) bother? There is nothing you can say that will change these guy's minds.

Because it sharpens our intellectual talons. It helps define and refine my understanding of science, and reaffirms its usefulness in determining truth from wishful thinking. And who knows, maybe the pig will sing...

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Hay, SUTG. How did marsupials evolve the ability to give birth to very small young and the necessary pouch to nurture them till they reached an age where they could fend for themselves?

If you're really interested your buddy Cricket started a thread on that very topic over on Art of Smack- I attempted to postulate a possible pathway- it is based on guesswork but I believe it to be a feasible starting point for discussing that issue. Why don't you go take a look?

 

[Cliffracer RIP]

Why do you sit on the fence? Doesn't it really hurt?

Not really, I take into account the evidence and I think the truth is well somewhere between pure *ID* and pure *Darwin*.

Based upon the fact that both can demolish eachother on some points but fail miserably on others.

 

[bob b]

Not really, I take into account the evidence and I think the truth is well somewhere between pure *ID* and pure *Darwin*..

I believe that you have a misunderstanding about ID: it is not a replacement for Darwinism but instead a reformation of some of the excesses of it.

One of these main excesses was the extrapolation backwards in time to a hypothetical primitive protocell as the starting point for life, whereas ID simply claims that certain feature of cells and primitive creatures are what is called "irreducibly complex", meaning that no single part can be removed without causing the entire biological mechanism to become non-functional. In other words ID does not rule out the possibility that many if not most of the features of cells and organisms might have arisen by Darwinian mechanisms.

Darwin's main contribution, Natural Selection, remains alive and well (even though the idea was not original with him).

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I believe that you have a misunderstanding about ID: it is not a replacement for Darwinism but instead a reformation of some of the excesses of it.

One of these main excesses was the extrapolation backwards in time to a hypothetical primitive protocell as the starting point for life, whereas ID simply claims that certain feature of cells and primitive creatures are what is called "irreducibly complex", meaning that no single part can be removed without causing the entire biological mechanism to become non-functional. In other words ID does not rule out the possibility that many if not most of the features of cells and organisms might have arisen by Darwinian mechanisms.

Darwin's main contribution, Natural Selection, remains alive and well (even though the idea was not original with him).

Yes, they are not out to replace the theory of evolution, but improve it with the addition of God! It's like adding jelly to that peanutbutter sandwich, not at all hijiacking a useful theory and turning it into useless religious propaganda that makes no predictions and is as useful in biology as tits on a bishop.

 

[Stripe]

If you're really interested your buddy Cricket started a thread on that very topic over on Art of Smack- I attempted to postulate a possible pathway- it is based on guesswork but I believe it to be a feasible starting point for discussing that issue. Why don't you go take a look?

Naw, I can't stand that Cricket fella.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Naw, I can't stand that Cricket fella.

Ah. Well the point is, I laid a pathway that explains one possible means by which marsupial pouches could have come into being.

 

[Stripe]

Not really, I take into account the evidence and I think the truth is well somewhere between pure *ID* and pure *Darwin*. Based upon the fact that both can demolish eachother on some points but fail miserably on others.

You've seen all the evidence?

What's the best defence for evolution?

 

[Stripe]

Ah. Well the point is, I laid a pathway that explains one possible means by which marsupial pouches could have come into being.

Post it here. I'll hit it for six. Cricket probably played a dead-bat to it.

 

[bob b]

Ah. Well the point is, I laid a pathway that explains one possible means by which marsupial pouches could have come into being.

Ah. A scenario, the pinnacle of Science.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Post it here. I'll hit it for six. Cricket probably played a dead-bat to it.

http://www.artofsmack.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152&page=2

Like I said- yes it is a guess- based on only my understanding of the theory, but I think it serves to get the ball moving so swing away (sorry, I know nothing of cricket).

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Ah. A scenario, the pinnacle of Science.

It all has to start somewhere. Or do you think theories spring like Athena from the head of Zeus?

 

[Stripe]

http://www.artofsmack.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152&page=2Like I said- yes it is a guess- based on only my understanding of the theory, but I think it serves to get the ball moving so swing away (sorry, I know nothing of cricket).

The fundamentals of batting in cricket are similar to baseball, but the philosophy is vastly different. Both need a good eye and quick reflexes. Keep your eye on the ball works well for both. Cricket is a more mentally challenging practice. You need to be able to bat time and to adjust your game to the situation. There is some semblance of this in baseball, but not in a single turn at bat. To be successful with the bat in cricket you have to adjust over a long period to changing conditions, ball, pitch, bowler, umpire, weather and match situation. Obviously a game that sends a batter in for a few minutes with multiple lives each time is missing vital aspects when compared to a sport that sends a batter out with only the one life and for a length of time generally only restricted by his own limitations.

As for your speculation on kangaroos: it is about as useful to me as me saying "God created each kind of animal" is to you.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

The fundamentals of batting in cricket are similar to baseball, but the philosophy is vastly different. Both need a good eye and quick reflexes. Keep your eye on the ball works well for both. Cricket is a more mentally challenging practice. You need to be able to bat time and to adjust your game to the situation. There is some semblance of this in baseball, but not in a single turn at bat. To be successful with the bat in cricket you have to adjust over a long period to changing conditions, ball, pitch, bowler, umpire, weather and match situation. Obviously a game that sends a batter in for a few minutes with multiple lives each time is missing vital aspects when compared to a sport that sends a batter out with only the one life and for a length of time generally only restricted by his own limitations.

As for your speculation on kangaroos: it is about as useful to me as me saying "God created each kind of animal" is to you.

Well, I can only do my humble best. I'm not expecting conversion- if anything just some critical analysis. Whenever I think of cricket I think of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and the couch on the field in Life, the Universe, and Everything and about the Monty Python sketches about cricket.