Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4) (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 22:37 (4678 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: dhw,
I uh...
Well I have nothing really to add here. If you don't accept Natural Selection as I discussed it here, I can't really say anything about the subject. The only way to dislodge NS as the lynchpin is to demonstrate (as I said earlier) that creatures evolve without need of a stimuli. That's it. That's all you need to do.-Innovation through (chance) mutations is an integral feature of Darwin's theory, and without this there would be no evolution, but even if you insist that innovations are always caused by stimuli, you still have to face the fact that NS creates absolutely nothing. David, Tony and I keep hammering at this point (to which you consistently fail to respond) as follows:-TONY: No. You are still using NS as an active force in the stimulation of transformation. A change in environment is an stimulus. A dietary change is an stimulus. A lack of available breeding mates is a stimulus. NS is the results. It does not change or influence anything in anyway.-I have half a dozen dictionaries, all of which offer very similar definitions of NS. Here is the Encarta one: "The process, according to Darwin, by which organisms best suited to survival in a particular environment achieve greater reproductive success, thereby passing advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations."-If you can demonstrate that evolution could function without these advantageous genetic characteristics, and that these advantageous genetic characteristics are PRODUCED by NS (as opposed to being passed on), you will convince me that NS is the lynchpin. That's it. That's all you need to do. -You have also ignored my response to your attack on David's "public" use of the word "theory", as opposed to the scientific use, which = "a theory that has been repeatedly verified by experiment". May I ask what experiments have repeatedly verified that humans can evolve from bacteria, or that changes in the environment can produce totally new species (as opposed to existing species adapting themselves)?-(N.B. Like David, I believe that evolution happened, but I'm not convinced by certain aspects of the theory. My challenge to you here is to defend your scientific use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution.)