big bang continued

[gray wolf]

I think many Christians as well as individuals of other faiths do believe in "micro evolution" (the adaptations of species to environment through natural selection), but draw the line at the change to new species. Of course many believers do believe in theory as well.

[Hawkins]

I think many Christians as well as individuals of other faiths do believe in "micro evolution" (the adaptations of species to environment through natural selection), but draw the line at the change to new species. Of course many believers do believe in theory as well.

 

That's rather about the doubt that how far evolution can drive.

 

Assume that the following is the evidence,

 

A rat does evolved into a cat. You can thus scientifically, repeatedly turning a rat to a cat. 

 

Now what conclusions can be drawn from this,

 

1. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a rat must be from a single cell

2. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that a cat must be from a single cell

3. because a rat evolved to a cat, such that all species must have been from a single cell

 

The above however are fallacies. A rat to cat change can never demonstrate how organs are formed, it thus can't lead to the above conclusions.

 

No evidence can be stronger than "a rat evolved to a cat". So if the strongest evidence ever won't lead to those conclusions, how about other weaker evidence, such whatever macro-evolution could be?

[gray wolf]

You'd need a predecessor which is extinct to the current species in this example, I think.

But I don't follow you here about the single cell statements.  Are you talking about gametes or what?

[Hawkins]

I don't follow you here about the single cell statements.  Are you talking about gametes or what?

 

Evolution implicitly or explicitly hinted that all species are ultimately from a single cell. My point is to illustrate that this view is unsupported. 

 

Even the assumed strongest evidence (rat to cat) won't support the conclusion that "species are from a single cell" as evolution trying to conclude.

[gray wolf]

But you made a leap from one organism to another in your thought experiment.  That all are from a single cell seems outside the scope.

I'm a little nuanced in my view of evolution.  I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do for its adherents.

[Hawkins]

But you made a leap from one organism to another in your thought experiment.  I'm a little nuanced in my view of evolution.  I think there is a lot of 'splaining to do for its adherents.

 

The point is that, even when rat to cat is a fact. It won't support that species are from a single cell. I point this out because a lot of people think that, say, macro-evolution supports the conclusion that species are from a single cell. However, if rat-to-cat can't support so, how can any macro-evolution be used to support it.

 

That's the point.

[gray wolf]

I don't think that's the case, but I am not an authority on evolution.  But then we have the Big Bang. . .

[Hawkins]

I don't think that's the case, but I am not an authority on evolution.  But then we have the Big Bang. . .

 

Well. You can just leave it there. People will be able to get the point. As for the big bang, we need to first address where the controversy is coming from. Science can be efficient and accurate only in dealing with a repeating pattern. The big bang however never repeats in front of us. Science is usually futile about this. That's where the doubts and arguments coming from.

 

Evolution is a claimed repeating pattern, but the pattern itself is not repeatedly available for examination. That's where the controversy coming from.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

I don't think that's the case, but I am not an authority on evolution.  But then we have the Big Bang. . .

 

Well. You can just leave it there. People will be able to get the point. As for the big bang, we need to first address where the controversy is coming from. Science can be efficient and accurate only in dealing with a repeating pattern. The big bang however never repeats in front of us. Science is usually futile about this. That's where the doubts and arguments coming from.

 

Evolution is a claimed repeating pattern, but the pattern itself is not repeatedly available for examination. That's where the controversy coming from.

 

But some of our paragons of science on the boards keep trying to argue that simply because we can't apply the scientific method and cannot offer up any real scientific evidence for either the BB or evolution doesn't mean they are not scientifically proven facts that should be accepted without challenge or question.

 

We are all supposed to be a bunch of sheep who don't ask questions, who just blithely accept what we are told that are to believe.  That is what the scientific community wants from us.   We are supposed to sit down, shut up and just believe what scientific community tells us to believe.

[Dee1116]

To me the big bang requires just as much faith as faith in God does!