Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Super Nova]

Where do ||we came from....?

Apes and Man came from a common ancestor who came from a common ancestor of other linages that are now extininct.

Explained in Common Ascent a theory that is one strand of the Theory Evolution.

More creationist propaganda.

I put some effort in to start to respond to your creationist blog in my eariler post.

Can you respond to the Common Ascent bits for now.

[annielaurie]

Thanks to Neferti for posting the link to transitional fossils,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... _evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Appears to be a smooth transition there, and where there are gaps, the fossils will be there in the strata. It will take awhile, but more and more of them will be found, identified and placed into the record in their proper order.

I see no "help" from a higher power, no intervention from a supernatural designer. I embrace the adaptability of the DNA molecule itself, and a steady progression of species gradually branching out over long periods of time, by the mechanism of natural selection.

Evolution is the grand scheme, natural selection is the mechanism. Since DNA evolved in the environment of this planet, it belongs here and it works here. DNA is the designer.

[Super Nova]

Thanks to Neferti for posting the link to transitional fossils,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... _evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Appears to be a smooth transition there, and where there are gaps, the fossils will be there in the strata. It will take awhile, but more and more of them will be found, identified and placed into the record in their proper order.

I see no "help" from a higher power, no intervention from a supernatural designer. I embrace the adaptability of the DNA molecule itself, and a steady progression of species gradually branching out over long periods of time, by the mechanism of natural selection.

Evolution is the grand scheme, natural selection is the mechanism. Since DNA evolved in the environment of this planet, it belongs here and it works here. DNA is the designer.

Agree with everything but "DNA is the designer".

It's more like DNA is the programme model that assembles atoms to build structures that are self replicating. This programme can randomly change and produce different structures. If these changes (mutations) get to survive and reproduce then these changes exist until made extinct, changed again. They can even remain unchanged.

No designer involved.

[Super Nova]

More creationist propaganda.

I put some effort in to start to respond to your creationist blog in my eariler post.

Can you respond to the Common Ascent bits for now.

Bump for FD

[annielaurie]

Agree with everything but "DNA is the designer".

It's more like DNA is the programme model that assembles atoms to build structures that are self replicating. This programme can randomly change and produce different structures. If these changes (mutations) get to survive and reproduce then these changes exist until made extinct, changed again. They can even remain unchanged.

No designer involved.

Of course, Nova. I meant that to mean a program model that can randomly change and produce different structures. I didn't mean it as a "sentient being" that "designs" living creatures.

So we are in agreement on how it works.

[Super Nova]

Agree with everything but "DNA is the designer".

It's more like DNA is the programme model that assembles atoms to build structures that are self replicating. This programme can randomly change and produce different structures. If these changes (mutations) get to survive and reproduce then these changes exist until made extinct, changed again. They can even remain unchanged.

No designer involved.

Of course, Nova. I meant that to mean a program model that can randomly change and produce different structures. I didn't mean it as a "sentient being" that "designs" living creatures.

So we are in agreement on how it works.

Annie, as always....

Strange that FD goes quite when the effort is put in. I was taking apart his claims one and one and then no response.

Funny that.

[mantra]

Annie, as always....

Strange that FD goes quite when the effort is put in. I was taking apart his claims one and one and then no response.

Funny that.

Considering the volume of posts aimed at FD - I think he makes a big effort to respond. I think he also agreed that DNA was scientific. I agree with a lot of your responses SN - but when it comes to large volumes of text, it's easy to skim over them. The more simple the explanation - the easier it is for some of us to understand.

In regards to my comments earlier about evolution not being taught in science classes - after checking, I was partially wrong - but right in the fact that learning the basics of evolution begins in primary school. Some theories of evolution are taught in science at high school, only at an earlier stage than I remember. Like Aussie - I probably wasn't listening to the teacher and missed it. Creationism is taught in religion for those who are interested.

[Super Nova]

No worries Mantra.

When I made summary statements they got me nowhere. So it is better to try and address all the points.

We were all taught Newton's theories. We all accepth that is science.

Fact is, Newtonian mechanics is a really good estimate of what happens and is not the scientific truth. It fails when things are travelling at high speed and when mass is very large. Einstien is more accurate but the maths is much more complex. Even NASA use Newtonian maths for their calculations...

So, should be teach Newtons laws a school?

[Rorschach]

LOL...

"DNA is Scientific" what does that mean mantra?

"DNA is the designer" who or what designed DNA Annie?

If "DNA is the programme" who or what was the programmer? (Forgive me for dropping "model" Super, I felt it unnecessary for my point).

Personally I think as humans we will probably never see or understand all of the big picture, it will be beyond our comprehension. I see lots of arguments on lots of topics like this that are clearly flawed because of the bias or ignorance of the poster. I mean "ignorance" in the nicest possible way. There are many things I am ignorant of.

I can accommodate a God in the process. A Grand Designer/Programmer. Someone or something that has set all in motion. I have absolutely no problem with that. Why should I?

[mantra]

LOL...

"DNA is Scientific" what does that mean mantra?

Every observation is scientific so the word covers anything and everything. Even the fact that you noticed what I posted is scientific. Your thoughts on these comments are a theory - or maybe a hypothesis?