Darwin's Theory Challenged

[smileyman]

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

It was one of the proteins that most closely matched the chickens. You do realize that current theory is that dinosaurs evolved into birds?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Yeah I have heard about the T-Rex DNA resembling the chicken, but don't think in any way they ever evolved from the chicken. To me that is like comparing a Bank made of bricks and a home made of bricks.

The building blocks are all the same, but it doesn't mean they are related. Sure take them apart and rebuild them however but they still don't become one or the other naturally...

Ostriches and ducks are also related. It's not too much of a stretch. If all life came from the same original building blocks, like the primordial soup that scientists frequently talk about, then species development would tend to follow well defined branches from the original. That would mean even evolutionary dead ends could bear significant genetic resemblance to current species.

DNA spells out traits, at any rate. If some dinosaurs had hollow bone structures, as do birds, then that trait would tend to look much the same in their divergent genetic material.

[Trip]

It's not saying evolution is wrong, it's saying it happens at a much faster rate than the old model suggests. Inheritance of traits can dramatically effect the next generation instead of taking millions of years.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

It's not saying evolution is wrong, it's saying it happens at a much faster rate than the old model suggests. Inheritance of traits can dramatically effect the next generation instead of taking millions of years.

Which is the difference between theories like Natural Selection and Generational Mutation.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Which is the difference between theories like Natural Selection and Generational Mutation.

Exactly, which is why it is saying Darwin is wrong because he was natural selection, not all of evolution.

[Destitute]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

What and where is the burden of proof?

It doesn't make much sense to argue with someone who believes that reason and belief are functionally and rationally equivalent. Until we can reach a consensus on what constitutes a rational discussion, defining a common ground of understanding is nigh impossible.

Back to your question: Sort of. The "problem" (it's not a flaw, just an inherent unknown) is the suitability of the proven mechanisms in their predictive or explanatory capacity. The understanding of inheritance mechanisms through genetic transmission is one lens to look at the problem. It may not show you the finest details, or the entire picture, but it does explain a great deal of what has been observed.

The argument from ignorance is only persuasive to the uninformed.

[smileyman]

Originally Posted by Destitute

What and where is the burden of proof?

It doesn't make much sense to argue with someone who believes that reason and belief are functionally and rationally equivalent. Until we can reach a consensus on what constitutes a rational discussion, defining a common ground of understanding is nigh impossible.

Back to your question: Sort of. The "problem" (it's not a flaw, just an inherent unknown) is the suitability of the proven mechanisms in their predictive or explanatory capacity. The understanding of inheritance mechanisms through genetic transmission is one lens to look at the problem. It may not show you the finest details, or the entire picture, but it does explain a great deal of what has been observed.

The argument from ignorance is only persuasive to the uninformed.

YES. That is what I was trolling for. I wasn't espousing that reason and belief were equivalent but rather trying to say exactly what you hit upon. And you have zeroed in on my thoughts in teh second paragraph nicely. Argument from ignorance or argument from falsely percieved knowledge is sort of down the same trail.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Exactly, which is why it is saying Darwin is wrong because he was natural selection, not all of evolution.

Except that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection can both stand alone, or co-exist, without issue. The truthfulness of the one does nothing to discredit the other. There can be many mechanisms by which the character of life is altered.

The piece started by presenting a non sequitur in order to support its argument. They seem to be saying that the sudden appearance of a physical characteristic invalidates other beliefs. It doesn't, quite simply because the trait that they point to is readily repeatable, from generation to generation. It is not a genetic divergence, it is a fixed genetic trait/ability. it's like saying that my kid having blonde hair, when mine is brown, is evidence of evolution.

People who have an over abundance of food in their formative years display a tendency toward certain physical traits later in life. DUH! Smoking fathers have a higher tendency toward having obese children. What about the effects of nicotine on the brain, smokers' social tendencies, and the like? Completely discounted. Causation is not shown.

All of this has the ring of junk science, to my ears.

[Destitute]

Originally Posted by smileyman

YES. That is what I was trolling for. I wasn't espousing that reason and belief were equivalent but rather trying to say exactly what you hit upon. And you have zeroed in on my thoughts in teh second paragraph nicely. Argument from ignorance or argument from falsely percieved knowledge is sort of down the same trail.

Unknowns can be quantified to some extent. For example, if you observe genetic drift over a few populations, and extrapolate that out to species change, and then dig up bones that are dated via radioisotope method to fall in the same approximate time period, that gives you some confidence that your method is in the same ballpark as radioisotope dating. Or, you have multiple samples at the same site to compare, or across different sites, etc.

If you're way off the mark, it's back to the drawing board. If, on the other hand, independent researchers using a different approach reach similar conclusions (or gather data that aligns with your own), you can cite that as support. New observations which match predictions, or more accurate observations are the best indicators.