DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[Jetboy2]

Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't apply probability to the existence of a God in general. (And if I have ever said otherwise I was using sloppy language). But you can apply probability to the existence of a God who sets aside the laws of physics to intervene on this Earth. You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all. Which the non gullible know is tiny. Whether it be Jeanne Dixon, Doyle Brunson, Uri Geller or God the perpetrater.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are wrong even on this restricted basis David. There is no way of knowing if "God" does magic tricks in areas beyond explanation by science. And there is no way of knowing how to measure how large that area might be. You could conceive of the area explained by science as the Unit Interval with everything else the Real Line, with the uniform measure on the Real Line. God may be playing magic tricks in places of infinite measure away from the Interval Explained by Science.

If the Interval explained by science expands a little so as to rule out Magic Tricks in the expanded Interval, it makes absolutely no mathematical sense to say the probability of God playing Magic Tricks somewhere else on the Infinite Line has been Reduced. You have no mathematical model for such a probability statement. Not only do you fail to understand the mathematics for the probability terms you toss around in this context, you fail to grasp the following fundamental concept.


If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.


PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

No, when he said that we shouldn't allow theories to be taught in schools, he just meant we shouldn't allow theories that he doesn't like to be taught in schools. This was made clear with the gravity example. Its possible he doesn't know the difference between a theory and a fact, and if so, you cant really blame him. He should try to educate himself a little though.

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
I lump them into the same category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it seems that many others don't and end up seeing much less opportunity for variation by ignoring these. They wonder how rare mutations can accomplish so much when it is really other variation doing most of the work.

D.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be less?

Take the probability of all the atoms and molecules in a volume of water behaving in such a way as to form a parting of the Red Sea.

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

No informed person is going to deny that the earths crust is moving.

However, Pangea is a ridiculous theory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to calculate the probability of an event for which there is no known natural explanation is basically the same as doing it for an event caused by God. Even if you could how could you compare it to the same event caused by God?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you nitpick details when you and I both know that you have the intelligence to know what I was getting at.

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, while it is an unprovable theory, it is certainly not a disputed theory because it can be tested and demonstrated.

Macro/Cosmic/Chemical/Organic evolution cannot.