Henry J
Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005
|
| Quote | | Therefore, how can Darwinism be considered a Scientific theory any more than ID, if both Theories cannot answer the basic question, which is: "Where did the the first self-replicating molecule or cell come from?" |
That's not the basic question. The questions addressed by evolution theory are (1) why is a single nested hierarchy so prevalent across known life forms, (2) why are closely related species clustered near each other geographically, (3) why is it so common to find evidence that a later species is a modified copy of an earlier species, etc. (a biologist could no doubt make a much longer list). Those patterns are a direct logical consequence of the premises on which evolution theory is based, and that's why evolution is accepted by scientists, and why it is what gets taught in science classes (at least those that are properly run).
To put this another way, arguing against a theory requires addressing the questions that the theory does answer, and showing that it answers them incorrectly, not by referring to questions that it doesn't address.
| Quote | | As a chemist, you know, three Helium nuclei, with the same harmonics, at the same velosity, need to meet at the same instant to make the nuclei for a Carbon Atom. |
I'm not a physicist, but that doesn't sound right. Oh, three He atoms is one way to make a carbon, but other ways that come to mind are 1+5=6 (H+B=C), 2+4=6 (He+Be=C), and 3+3=6 (Li+Li=C), none of which require more than two nuclei hitting each other at the same time.
| Quote | Seriously, natural selection does not have any kind of creative power at all. All it does is kill of the runts.
- Unknown creationist. |
Mutations increase the amount of variety within the species or population. Selection happens when varieties that don't do as well become a smaller fraction of that population. It's the positive feedback from repetitive variation plus selection that produces new abilities in the members of the species, not either of those mechanisms by itself.
| Quote | | But science cannot prove Darwinian Selectivity, |
That depends on what one means by "prove". What scientists can do (and have done) is figure out what patterns would be highly likely consequences of the premises in the theory, and highly unlikely to occur together if it's wrong, and check if those patterns are routinely observed. (I listed three such patterns in an earlier paragraph.)
| Quote | | a very, very valid Scientific Question is this: Which microbial life form did the dinosaurs come from? Was it different than the mammals? |
See website http://tolweb.org/Amniota/14990 for the relationships of those groups of species. Their common ancestor was an early reptile or reptile-like species, not a microbe.
| Quote | | Did/do species evolve, and what is the cause? Examining all available evidence is a good place to start. |
That is what scientists do. It's how the theory was formulated in the first place.
| Quote | | ALL matter is “Pre-programmed!!! |
If that's your way of saying that two atoms of the same element will undergo the same chemical reactions when put in the same circumstances, then yes. But I don't see the point of putting it that way.
| Quote | | Why Carbon is the most plentiful element in the Universe when it should not be according to the laws of Fusion, |
I would expect the relative abundance of elements to generally go down as the atomic number goes up. I don't offhand know what a "law of fusion" is, unless it's a funny way of saying that elements with 2 or more protons are produced by fusion of lighter nuclei, mostly in stars plus some that happened before the universe cooled off from the big bang.
Henry
|
