Spiders - or Does Evolution Happen??

[benb]

I had lectures from Mike Majerus, although my recollection was that he was more into ladyboys at the time.

FTFY! [joke, before I get sued]

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Check out what the Early Fathers said about the authors of the gospels.

Are they available to cross examine and test the veracity of their statements?

 

[Ian H]

I find it interesting that bible literalists will take huge pains to pick holes in the tiniest bits of scientific research with the aim of debunking evolution, but swallow the bible whole and without question.

 

[vernon]

Tinyrannosaurus Rex
Dinkyplodocus

And the dinosaur burglar, Doyathinkesaurous and its dog, Doyathinkesaurous Rex

 

[Tin Pot]

Well, there have certainly been some fossilised footprints that eroded a bit around the edges before fully fossilised, which made them appear bigger than they were, but I can't think of anything that would make a fossilised skeleton increase in size in a uniform way to make dinosaurs appear bigger than they were.
What makes you think they were smaller? (bear in mind there weren't actually that many species that were massive - loads of them were no bigger than extant animals)

I just do!

I'm always suspicious of assumptions, and whilst I see no flaws as such in the current science, its just never sat well with me.

 

[Tin Pot]

Dinosaurs were teenytiny, but all that rock on top of their bodies spread them out really thin so they look much bigger. A bit like squeezing a veal escalope between layers of cling film with a rolling pin.

See - an idea already(!)

 

[winjim]

I find it interesting that bible literalists will take huge pains to pick holes in the tiniest bits of scientific research with the aim of debunking evolution, but swallow the bible whole and without question.

Yet they still don't understand that science thrives on such nitpicking, it's what drives it forward. Science is a system of philosophy which exists in order to prove itself wrong.

However, nobody on this thread has yet declared themselves to be a bible literalist. I see a lot of vague and evasive posts laden with innuendo, but no actual claims for creationism, nor any coherent arguments against evolution or the scientific method.

 

[Ian H]

Yet they still don't understand that science thrives on such nitpicking, it's what drives it forward. Science is a system of philosophy which exists in order to prove itself wrong.

However, nobody on this thread has yet declared themselves to be a bible literalist. I see a lot of vague and evasive posts laden with innuendo, but no actual claims for creationism, nor any coherent arguments against evolution or the scientific method.

I'm not sure anyone would self-describe themselves as such. However the methodology is very familiar.

 

[Tin Pot]

I'm not sure anyone would self-describe themselves as such. However the methodology is very familiar.

I can't think of any school of thought that uses the word variance to counter evolution that is not creationist.

 

[mybike]

Nothing is certain, there are no "laws" despite some things being called them. The farmer buys the seed on the basis that it will produce what they are told, which is formed upon hundreds of years of evolution.

I'm not sure how simple I can make it?

You know that a disagreement does not disprove something? Scientific methodology is always evolving

Our methods change, our analysis changes. Science has the ability to look at things again, and change the theories. But still, there has been no observation to challenge the theory of evolution.

So are you going to make denials without proof?

 

[Spinney]

What's Phil denying? It is you denying that evolution happens - without proof...

 

[mybike]

What's Phil denying? It is you denying that evolution happens - without proof...

Then, as I've already said, demonstrate the descent of all life from a last common ancestor.

 

[Spinney]

In a post on an internet forum? Just like that?
There is so much evidence that has been explained by the theory of evolution that it would (and does) take a library-full.
And as has already been noted, you appear to misunderstand the nature of science. Science can't prove that things are so. Science develops theories to explain evidence, and tests those theories by trying to disprove them. In fact, most biologists would love to disprove evolution - they would be instantly famous.
You appear to be the only poster on this thread who thinks that evolution does not explain the development of the life we see around us today. Yet you have provided no evidence to disprove evolution.

 

[mybike]

nobody on this thread has yet declared themselves to be a bible literalist.

Not sure such a thing exists, after all the Bible contains a number of genres, some of which are not intended to be taken literally.

And as has already been noted, you appear to misunderstand the nature of science. Science can't prove that things are so. Science develops theories to explain evidence, and tests those theories by trying to disprove them. In fact, most biologists would love to disprove evolution - they would be instantly famous.

Do you understand what the Royal Society's motto Nullius In Verba means? It means that however much you claim, unless you can demonstrate the process you claim it is just a claim. No one can demonstrate the process of Evolution, although some processes that are claimed to contribute to it are observable, the complete process is not.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Then, as I've already said, demonstrate the descent of all life from a last common ancestor.

In this thread you come across as someone that likes asking questions but does not like answering them.

As it's 'your thread' why don't you go first and explain how species variations have taken place across time without evolution (and the various mechanisms that drive it) having been involved?

I'm a million miles from being an expert on religion, evolution, or anything if I was to be honest but I know of one religion that says that a god created two people. From these two people the rest of humanity flowed.

With that scenario as a starting point, what would be the mechanism that accounts for the massive ethnic diversity of the human race that is currently manifest, if not evolution?