Nimzabaat said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Nimzabaat said:
Thanks for tearing down your own argument, it saves me time. What bothers me about evolutionists is that their prophets (scientists) admit that evolution is a theory.
What bothers me is that you don't understand what a theory is, or you'd understand there's no problem with "admitting" it.
Science is not portrayed as the infallible word of some higher power, and thus does not need to hide its status. Nor is a scientific theory particularly something to be ashamed of.
You seem to be a fan of false equivalence, but one can replicate evolutionary results independently. Since you're so quick to compare scientists to religious folk, can you tell me how I can replicate the miracles of the Bible, or spiritual acts of any other holy book, on my own?
Sure. While I'm on that, why don't you make something evolve? A Komodo Dragon into a flying Komodo dragon would be cool. I'll even give you seven days. Whoever is the first to do their respective challenges wins, otherwise it'll have to be a draw.
Incidentally, I'm not arguing against either standpoint. It really comes down to people saying "because I can read it, that makes it true". What's interesting about this is that scientists gain knowledge by challenging what they've been taught. That's the difference you're not seeing. Neither side of this argument is willing to challenge what they've been taught, especially when those teachings are being questioned by "heretics". I'll repeat myself here. That's why we can't have nice things.
"Modern science comes from Descartes, who said that the conquest of nature is achieved through measurement and number. Do you know how he came to that realization? He had a psychedelic experience with mushrooms in which an angel told him this was so."
Challenging what you are taught is certainly something people should do. Evolution is a bit harder to test within the confines of your own home than say gravity, but it certainly is testable. You don't even need a living organism to test it out.
1. Grab a collection of object that are identical except for color or some single observable trait. (20-50 is good for demonstration but it will work with any amount greater than 3)
2. Take half (or less than half if odd) of the objects and place them in a container of some sort, and keep the other half for later in the experiment
3. Select a color.
4. Count the fraction of objects of each color within the container
5. Remove a fraction of the population by only choosing objects of the selected color. I like 1/4th, but any fraction will do so long as it doesn't exceed the fraction of the population with that color.
6. For every object in the container add another object of the same color (from those that you left out in step 2)
7. Stop, or repeat steps 5-6 as many times as you like
8. Count the fraction of objects of the selected color and compare it to the fraction counted in step 4.
9. Analyze the results however you like to determine whether or not there was a significant shift in the trait (color of your object's population
10. If there was a significant shift in the color frequency, then you just observed evolution via artificial selection
11. One can draw a logically consistent corollary that any force can supply the selection instead of the experimentalist.
12. Thus evolution by natural selection is possible.
This only tells the home experimentalist that natural selection is a logical possibility, not that it happens. However there have been a number of studies that demonstrate such events do occur in nature. An individual may come to their own conclusion whether or not the scientific process, and peer review in particular, is a trustworthy source of information. I personally find it an acceptable compromise given the alternative (verifying each study individually) whenever I can conclude that the results are logically consistent such as when demonstrated with the above experiment.
However most people who have a problem with the theory of evolution don't disagree that evolution is an observable phenomenon (I.E. that the traits of populations can change over time) but that it can lead to speciation. This can be explained by the following logic.
P1. From the experiment above it was determined that the frequency of a trait can change over time as a result of natural selection
P2. New traits can arise through mutation any number of times. I will assume that anybody will agree on this given its overwhelming evidence, but it is absolutely critical for evolution to result in new species.
P3. Two species are said to be different from one another if they possess some number of differing traits. (Intentionally very vague to cover all definitions of "species").
1: From P2 and P1 we can conclude that new traits arise, and are selected for or against.
2: If selected for the frequency of this new trait will increase (definition).
3: New traits can arise any number of times, and be selected for or against (restatement of part of P2)
4: Through the logical extreme of 2 the trait can be selected for so strongly that after a number of generations each member of the population possess it.
6. A population can then accumulate a number of traits that are selected for such that each member of the population possess the set of new traits that were not possessed by the starting population.
6: The population, now possessing a number of traits the original population did not, is a new species by P3
7: A new species can then arise from an existing species via selection.
As before this only shows that it is logically consistent that evolution by natural selection can lead to speciation and not that it has in nature. For that, once again, we have to look at the scientific studies that suggest that it did. In this case namely the fossil record, molecular biology, and some ongoing instances of speciation that are being studied.
I am unaware (and unable to devise) of any analogous demonstration of the logical consistency of creationism. I look forward to any such response that can provide that for me. If anybody thinks I made some sort of skip in logic or false assumption please alert me so that I can either address it or correct my post as the case may be.