Okay, here's a twist on our currently accepted theory of evolution: mutations and changes in genetic expression are" non-random".
Good question and very relevant point. No, byteme, I can't. I'm pretty much in agreement with the points made on the websites that I gave links to.(other sources as well) In short, I believe some of the earliest fossils mentioned are a different kind of animal from the horse altogether. Some of the later fossils mentioned are different types of horses that all co-existed at some point.
A very good point, stu. To answer the question...Yes. I would be constantly questioning math itself if, everytime I turned around someone proved that the formulas or methods used were flawed and produced wrong answers. Same goes for evolution. rc
Well that IS the point. No one is proving that math is wrong. No one is proving evolution is wrong. A bunch of controvertialists trolling around saying math is wrong because math does not prove answers to particular equations, would not prove math is wrong and math constantly demonstrates how math works. Same goes for evolution . So why would you want to say evolution is wrong any more than you would want to say math is? You get controversial aspects in math, but you donât say math is fundamentally wrong because of that. Same goes for evolution.
No one is proving that evolution is right... Evolutionary theory hinges on one very important and critical assumption, and that assumption is that the nature of change is due to randomness... Is there proof of a random force the brings forth mutations in living beings?...uhhh, no. Would it make a difference if the changes in living beings was planned and guided...not random? Uhhh, yeah. Would the net result look any different today if all the change in living beings were random or guided? No. Would it make the ability to predict when the next change would occur possible? No. Would it mean that a purely atheistic evolution were not likely? Yes, of course... The bottom line is we have this silly formula that is not mathematical at all, this silly proposition that the change, or mutation is magically happening randomly and without cause or reason...or we have the naturalists just saying that this so called random force is "natural" so that we don't need to know if it really is random or guided (it has to be random, because we can't calculate or predict it?...now that's certainly not a reasonable conclusion...inability to apply science to predict behavior is the fault of science, not to be confused with some force which interpreted as random and causeless simply because we can't predict when change will occur). Is it equally possible as impossible that all change is guided and planned as it is equally possible that all change is not guided and not planned? Sure thing... So why assume either one? Why not take an agnostic position? Change happens, fact. Living beings are bound to try and survive change, fact. Now, here is where the true believers of atheism will step in and spout disconnect nonsense about the uncertainty principle and changes on a quantum level that are possessed of some force of unpredictability. As if we have the instrumentation to rule out change via guided and planned forces... This is the real fight...not the Bible, or some theory, or anything else. The real fight is the most important factor...is change really random or planned? If it really is random, how does someone prove that? Why is it that randomness must be assumed in a universe that is mostly non random and quite predictable? Why is it that the origin of life is assumed to be from some random black hole big bang thingy that cannot withstand even the simplest common sense questions? Because the atheists have their agenda, and the theists have their agenda... ...and the ultimate truth, which is beyond the reach of our limited science is laughing at those who are ignorantly fighting over their own ignorance and unpredictably beyond our ability to measure causation. When I see a scientist apply the "mathematics" of evolution to accurately predict species into the future, then there would be some credibility. Lacking that, and it truly is lacking, simply saying that things will change in the future, and that living beings will adapt as much as possible to survive doesn't take any science, that is not science at all...it is just a description of how life is. Those Christians who are glued into their own spin on the Bible who fight the concept that living beings change and adapt are fools... Those atheists who say that all species that exist do so simply because of random ignorant chance are equally fools... Oh and stupid, who believes in water droplets as designers, here is the math of your made up word: http://www.onelook.com/?w=controvertialists&ls=a
Isn't it marvellous how even for a troll like yourself, designer water drops have seared their way into your semi-consciousness so much so that you can't help but keep mentioning them. and here....get a little education it may do you some good. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/controversialist http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversialist
As usual, you have not even a sniff of refutation of the thrust of the argument presented...opting instead to go all ad hominem...pigging out on the bread crumbs of a trail left to expose the real disease of denial of the glaring and gaping hole that blind faith in randomness must distract away from... Such a Brier Rabbit you are stuck in the meaningless tar pit...trying reclaim some fallacious position. Intellectually useless you are...but there is always a need for someone like you to update Wikipedia minutia...
Remember that silly little puppet who hung around with Jabba the Hut? That's longshot... <img src=http://highlatencylife.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/crumb21-jabba-the-hut-pet-star-wars-return-of-the-jedi.jpg>