Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
Give me your testable model for abiogenesis! I didnt think so!
There is no entity called science all the word science means is to know or knowledge. If I was walking down the beach and I saw a sand castle, and saw no one for miles around would you conclude that the wind and the waves made it? Where did mass and energy come from? And who made the laws of physics and why? Why is there an atmosphere around the earth? How come there is air inwhich we just happen to need? and water? and food? who set the moon and the sun in their perfect places? How come storms as terrible as they can be they dont destroy us? who steadys the levels of the ocean that they dont rise so high to destroy us? How come we have two symetric arms and legs and yet they are opposites? and how come they are facing forward as are eyes are also, if think evolution is the case then what told your eyes to be in front and your hands? which came first from your point of view? your hands or your eyes? where did your eyes come from? a freckle? How ridiculous!!!!! where are your testable models? But you say it was intertwined and woven! Genetic change? you say? where? it is fact that genetics in is all you get out! Its funny how your claims have been made and propagandised but now that we can see what we have already known that evolution is completely bad science and the cameras are rolling, that evolutionists want to change their tune. Evolution is nothing more than a modern day thinking of the earth being flat, the difference is when they thought the earth was flat some realy believed it. The bible said that man sits on the circle of the earth before they could prove it.
respectfuly disagree, but you gave not a fact with evidence but a hypothetical with no evidnce for certainty.
gummybearlegs you are just bitter that evolution has no real science behind it
"Not really. Evolutionary theory is thoroughly, and crucially, entwined and woven together with numerous "auxiliary" principles, as Sober calls them, which render it rich in testable implications. See, for instance, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution."
Thanks, Stultis. That's an intriguing discussion. It will take me a while to digest it. Once I've done that, perhaps there will be some useful further discussion to follow. Meanwhile, thanks for sharing the reference. Here's a paper that I've been attempting to decipher recently. The discussion at your link seems likely to provide a helpful supplement to the explanations in this article:
SIREV Volume 49 Issue 1
Pages 3-31, ©2007 Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
The Mathematics of Phylogenomics
Lior Pachter and Bernd Sturmfels
Abstract
(Received May 29, 2005; accepted September 30, 2005; published January 30, 2007)
The grand challenges in biology today are being shaped by powerful high-throughput technologies that have revealed the genomes of many organisms, global expression patterns of genes, and detailed information about variation within populations. We are therefore able to ask, for the first time, fundamental questions about the evolution of genomes, the structure of genes and their regulation, and the connections between genotypes and phenotypes of individuals. The answers to these questions are all predicated on progress in a variety of computational, statistical, and mathematical fields. The rapid growth in the characterization of genomes has led to the advancement of a new discipline called phylogenomics. This discipline results from the combination of two major fields in the life sciences: genomics, i.e., the study of the function and structure of genes and genomes; and molecular phylogenetics, i.e., the study of the hierarchical evolutionary relationships among organisms and their genomes. The objective of this article is to offer mathematicians a first introduction to this emerging field, and to discuss specific mathematical problems and developments arising from phylogenomics.
http://siamdl.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=SIREAD&Volume=LASTVOL&Issue=LASTISS
Let's see ... you've demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that you don't know anything about the English language. You've demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that you don't know anything about science.
Your unsupported assertion demonstrates what I've just posted. Go ahead -- claim victory. Your ignorance is not only invincible, it is well nigh all-encompassing.
As always, there are exceptions to the rule...
May I conclude that you failed to understand the analogy?
Youve yet to show one specific valid point
As if you'd recognize one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.