On Jun 27, 1:11 am, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 25, 5:37 pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jun 25, 12:32 pm, Mike
hofstra.edu> wrote:>
>>> On Jun 25, 3:11 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jun 25, 1:57 pm, Mike
hofstra.edu> wrote:>
>>>>> On Jun 25, 2:50 pm, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> You can't tell me in full detail exactly how the sun shines.>
>>>> Sure I can. Gravity creates an enormous amount of energy in the form
>>>> of heat at the center of a huge mass of matter, so nuclear fusion
>>>> begins to occur. And, this process can be repeated on a smaller
>>>> scale in the laboratory. The size is not particularly important,
>>>> because no issues of probability or mathematics make the process
>>>> particularly more complex with the larger version than the smaller.
>>>> The process is simple. Not so with evolution. The details are
>>>> extremely complex, and must be followed precisely. We have never
>>>> followed them through with complex animals. Is this too difficult for
>>>> you?
>
>>> That is your idea of "full detail"? LOL! I will give you a
>>> comparably detailed account of the evolution of the eye. A
>>> photosensitive organ developed in some primitive beasty and in the
>>> passage of time developed into the eye.
>
>> This guy doesn't really know what he is doing logically. First he is
>> like a universal skeptic who claims the statement "nothing is provable
>> except what is in between the quote marks" which is not allowable
>> period. I won't allow it, not in this group and I will drill him on it
>> till he desists with his stolen concept. Secondly so far all we know
>> is theoretical, including my theory that everything is theoretical.
>> Thirdly you didn't question him about just why it is important to do
>> such a thing mathametically in such detail.
>
>> If the theory of evolution is based upon some observables like,
>> mutation, genetic crossover, changes in layers of the fossil record,
>> dating of DNA sequences, etc... and a large portion of hard science is
>> also based upon observation and then explainations, he convicts
>> himself out of the gate. He must show that mutations and the strong
>> evidence for mutation rates is not possible or highly unlikely, and I
>> would welcome that challenge. As for Newton every aspect of evolution
>> is based upon identical kinds of observations and explainations. This
>> guy should not have dared post in alt.philosophy for he shall be
>> grilled alive.
>
>> In science, a theory is an explanation. Evolution is a theory, just
>> like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination
>> of observations. If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
>> observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
>> with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
>> is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
>> mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
>> explanation.
>
>> In science, a theory is an explanation of observations. You explain an
>> observation with a theory.
>
>> As for the eye, peice a cake holmes;
>
>
>
>> A complex eye could easily have evolved from a simple eyespot through
>> a series of minor and reasonable variations. When a change conferred
>> even a slight advantage, it would have spread throughout the
>> population over several generations. Starting with the simplest light-
>> sensing device, a single photoreceptor cell, it is easy to draw a
>> series of incremental changes that would lead, step-by-step, directly
>> to lens-and-retina eye. None of the intermediate stages requires
>> anything more than an incremental change in structure: an increase in
>> cell number, a change in surface curvature, a slight increase in
>> transparency. Therefore, all the changes are reasonable.
>
>> The critic might ask what good that first tiny step, perhaps only 5%%
>> of an eye, might be. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind, the
>> one-eyed man is king. In a population with limited ability to sense
>> light, every slight improvement is favored, even if it represents only
>> 5%% of an eye. If each individual, incremental change would be favored
>> by natural selection, the whole sequence is would be favored as well.
>> Since none of the steps involves an unreasonable genetic change, the
>> contention that evolution cannot explain the evolution of a complex
>> eye is refuted.
>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You'll have to prove to me that every step of the evolution of the
> human eye has been represented mathematically, at the molecular level
> of DNA, and that random mutations have been shown to generate
> approximately the results and timing indicated by the fossil records.
> I've seen no indication of this, so far. Not that the Yahoos and
> Bureaucrats on this thread would particularly care. After all, just
> repeating "SCIENCE!!!! SCIENCE!!! SCIENCE!!!" is all that's important
> to them, obviously. Pure power game, without regard to truth, or
> social progress.
You keep repeating that request even though someone already posted
it. You're just unaware of the language used, or decided to skip it
because it had maths in it.
Have you come out with anything that isn't rhetoric?
Al
