Stats: 3,190,895 members, 7,942,249 topics. Date: Saturday, 07 September 2024 at 03:35 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. (2081 Views)
There Is A Power That Created The Scientific Laws: physics as an example. / Skeptism About Darwinian Evolution Grows As 1000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts / Atheism And Darwinian Evolution Are An Intellectual Embarrassment (2) (3) (4)
Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by OLAADEGBU(m): 8:43pm On Feb 05, 2018 |
www.livingwaters.com 2 Likes 1 Share
|
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 11:14pm On Feb 05, 2018 |
The good thing about scientific theory is that it provide an avenue to falsified itself. that is why some scientist are not comfortable with evolution theory today. so do not also treat creationist ideology as scientific. if you must do so, you should also provide how it can be falsified like scientific theory. 2 Likes |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by OLAADEGBU(m): 10:04am On Feb 06, 2018 |
vaxx: The OP has just told you how the creationist model can be observed and tested. Further, than that we have examples in Scriptures that show how the great Saints of the Old Testament dispensation demonstrated brilliant research skills that yielded incredible results. Gideon conducted a properly designed research, collected data, analyzed them and arrived at a valid conclusion on divine guidance (Judges 6:36-40). ![]() See more on the benefits of research on this thread. https://www.nairaland.com/1804865/higher-everyday-benefits-research/33#down |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:08pm On Feb 14, 2018 |
How the fine tuning of the universe points directly to God. http://reasonsforjesus.com/how-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-points-directly-to-god/ 2 Likes 1 Share
|
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by budaatum: 8:50pm On Feb 14, 2018 |
OLAADEGBU:I suggest you set up a crowdfund appeal. Your educating needs to be paid for.Darwinian evolution necessitates blind faith. Creationism passes the scientific method. It can be observed and tested. 4 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by Martinez19(m): 9:08pm On Feb 14, 2018 |
OLAADEGBU:you mean yahweh? 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:00pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
budaatum: Says the one who has been brainwashed by Darwinian evolution. ![]() 2 Likes 1 Share
|
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by OLAADEGBU(m): 2:01pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by MrMystrO(m): 5:25pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Hahaha this guy! I will humbly suggest to you that you leave science alone Please. Stick to preaching your bible gospel message to people who are interested in it and stop meddling in affairs you Know NOTHING about, Honestly your attempts at trying to discredit science makes you look Extremely stupid and i don't want to believe you're that stupid because you should Know They Don't go Hand in Hand. Stick to What you Know!! I've told you before, if you want to dispute scientific facts, Start by throwing away your Phone and creating your own phone and internet which you and your kind can use But if you can't do that then Stop displaying your Ignorance here on a daily basis, Its getting extremely boring! 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by Niflheim(m): 5:57pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
"that is why some scientist are not comfortable with evolution theory today."..................................Some? Like who? Can you mention their names? But surely, if Evolution were a fraud, they would have presented their evidence and won a Nobel Prize by now? But are you sure those scientists even know the definition of Evolution? Most people who "claim" that Evolution does not add up can easily be classified into one of 3 groups........................... 1.Argument from Ignorance 2.Argument based on personal incredulity 3.Outright dishonesty(the truth will expose my pastor) 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 6:06pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
MrMystrO: The kind of science that gave us phones and modern healthcare is observational science, which involves repeatable experiments. It is different from historical science, which deals with origins, and unrepeatable events such as molecules-to-man evolution. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 6:28pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Christians are not trying to discredit science. www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science In fact, Christians practise science too, and have pioneered, and continue to pioneer researches in different areas of science. Be properly informed. Don't be deceived by the efforts of evolutionists to paint Bible-believing Christians as anti-science. |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 7:03pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:how can you justify the claim bible made concerning Joshua, that he ask God to stop the world for a day? am sure you know it is scientifically impossible 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by MrMystrO(m): 7:21pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien: Please Enlighten me on what Radio carbon dating is, Because i do know that is the modern dating technique used for historical verification right now, So how is that not an observational and experimental science? Don't fool yourself anymore please. |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by MrMystrO(m): 7:27pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Niflheim: And also Emotional and Sentimental bias just Like the Op is doing now. Please add that. They are never Rational and Can never be rational because their beliefs have made them Bias and irrational by default that's why i Hardly argue with such people. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 7:34pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:All scientist evidence are base on observational principle, in evolution theory for instance which you may consider an historical science.Thousands of human fossils were studied, researched were also carried on Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record. In human genetics evidence were also observed on how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and that indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances of technology in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. any science without observation is simply pseudoscience .... observational method is the bedrock of scientific findings. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by MrMystrO(m): 7:34pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
vaxx: Its A Dead End. Rational people know well to separate Religion and Science because Science makes a mockery of religion and Anybody trying to intertwine the two is even more Ignorant than the average religious Dunce. Plain and simple. 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 8:18pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Treating Charles Darwin theory of natural selection as inaccurate does not mean you are not scientific, but replacing it with ideology that has no scientific principle will make you unscientific. scientific findings can also be used to falsify an established scientific theory, if it is rich enough. And that is the beauty of science... it can be falsify or upset at anytime.... To the guy asking for the names of scientist who reject evolution theory, goggle is your best friend, i will advice you to do your own personal research...... As for me i remain open to knowledge of the subject 2 Likes |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 8:31pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
vaxx: How I can justify it? The God who is able to create the universe is able to do anything. But if the question is, "how did it happen?", I suggest you read the different answers already proposed to it by many people. They are there on the Internet. 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 8:37pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
MrMystrO: The basic science and math underlying popular Radiocarbon dating, such as the half-life of Carbon-14 being about 5730 years, and the calculations employed are correct. Bible-believing Christians do not dispute that. However the starting Naturalistic assumptions (e.g. that the conditions today were the same conditions in the past) are most probably wrong. 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 8:41pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:OK, if that is your style of replying. this a forum where knowledge is encouraged to be shared, if i need internet reply i will not ask you. but thanks anyway. i will never ask such a silly question, how did it happen? were you there when it happens? rather i will ask you to justify the claim. |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 8:54pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
vaxx: All the evidences for Biblical models are based on observational principles too. Bible-believing scientists observe what evolutionists observe too. in evolution theory for instance which you may consider an historical science.Thousands of human fossils were studied, researched were also carried on Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record. The fossils were studied and findings recorded. But the interpretations given to these findings are different, because starting assumptions are different. Perhaps to help you: have you observed how ready evolutionists are to interpret any new finding in such a way as to make it fit into the evolutionary model? Have you asked yourself why evolutionists may be ready to drop Natural Selection as the driving force of evolution and look for another mechanism, but are not ready to abandon evolution? In human genetics evidence were also observed on how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and that indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances of technology in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. any science without observation is simply pseudoscience .... observational method is the bedrock of scientific findings. Relatedness of/common design in organisms can serve as evidence for a common Creator as much as it can serve as evidence for a common ancestor. Nay, I say that it serves better as an evidence for a common Creator than as an evidence for a common ancestor. 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 9:27pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:This is where the problem start, bible is not a scientific model, applying scientific techniques to justify biblical truth will amount to treating biblical evidence as scientific theory which can be upset or falsify at anytime..... how can you justify that God indeed stop the world for a day as bible indicate, can it be observed? how can you justify that first creation was truly Adam? can it be observed? any fossil of Adam to buttress your point? science and biblical evidence are two separate field that actually do not intertwined. biblical evidence is not dynamic ....it is meant to be so till eternity. how is it science? Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle, if the starting assumption is base on biblical assumption ,then it is not science anymore. bible itself is not a benchmark for science so why base the assumption on a wrong tools. natural selection is the major available evidence now, for any hypothesis to be consider , it must meet the theorem of scientific principle. if natural selection will be replaced today, the next mechanism will derived its assumption from basic observational findings which is the bedrock of science....science works with data and not tales or myths . scientist may argue that common ancestor may not equate common creator ...... look at pig and hippopotamus ..... both are almost identical yet they live in different world, hippopotamus is more closer to whales genetically than pig.... relying on biblical evidence may not be too good for your reason physically, bible is about spiritual development, while science too may also not be enough since it has limitations, it is about physical phenomenon.... why don't you just enjoy yourself and learn...... instead of trying to justify what is opposite of each other. ......spiritual and materialism..... 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 10:12pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
vaxx: Adam and Joshua's long day, as recorded in the Bible, cannot be observed today. And so is molecules-to-man evolution. Nobody saw any unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one billions of years ago. I've created a topic on this before: https://www.nairaland.com/4113600/there-really-war-science 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 10:16pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
Starting assumptions must be base on observational method that do not rely on any existing assumption that go against scientific principle, Vaxx, what is this scientific principle you're talking about? 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 10:38pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:False, an intelligence hypothesis had been made on how unicellular organism turned into multi cellular organism .... visit this page..... it explained better than i can do..... sooner or later, a theory will be established on it . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Hypotheses_for_origin..... Am not asking you about Adam or Joshua as historical figure, i am asking you, can you simply justify the claim made about them according to the bible scientifically? Joshua asking yhwh to stop the world for a day. and if probably you can justify Adam scientifically as the first man on earth? since you are treating bible as an observation evidence. i will vist the link you posted 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 10:40pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:observational method.....alias empirical approach |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 11:07pm On Feb 27, 2018 |
vaxx: You don't get it, do you? I have not asked you to describe for me how a unicellular could turn into a multicellular one. You could come up with a very detailed description of how a unicellular organism could turn into a multicellular one, but that is not a proof that a unicellular organism turned into a multicellular one billions of years ago, since no one was there to observe it. Just like my coming up with a very detailed description of how my great grandfather could have drowned in my village stream does not mean that my great grandfather really drowned in my village stream(supposing that there is no one today who can tell anything about anything that happened during my grandfather's era) That said, no one has ever even observed any unicellular organism turn into a multicellular one, nor do scientists even have a single convincing description of how that could have happened. Even the Wikipedia page you provided listed the myriad of mechanisms all proposed to explain how unicellular organisms could turn into multicellular ones, and of course with the various problems that face them. |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 12:05am On Feb 28, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:Yes i do get you , science in general do not need to adopt superfluous proposition....natural event that happens today, yesterday, tomorrow or even in the next twenty minute is historical , observable and testable. if not the purpose of forensic science will be useless as no jury will be able to convict a criminal as the jury was not there personally to witness the crime.... and effort made to study the past natural event to prevent the damage effect of earthquake or volcanoes too on human will be useless.... relying on eye witness account only is very ridiculous ,illogical and it contradict science.... Do you need an eye witness account for DNA test? if DNA can tell you that you share a common ancestor with your 10th cousins, why do you think it is wrong when it suggests that we share common ancestors with our 1,000th or 10,000th cousins? Or else, why do you think it is necessary to know the biographies of these common ancestors to accept that they really existed? the description of how unicellular turn to multi cellular is not so compelling for now but the findings is yet to be totally falsified. Science is capable of falsifying its own theory, you can see how the theory was able to state the problem of each hypothesis.... that is the beauty of science. ability to falsify itself. 1 Like |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 12:57am On Feb 28, 2018 |
vaxx: Has the meaning of the word "observe" changed? How can you observe something that happened when you were not there, and there was no camera to record it for you? Who saw the first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one? In your analogy, the jury were not there when the crime occurred but remember that if there is no piece of evidence against a suspect which his lawyer cannot successfully dispute, he may never be convicted. On the 97% similarity between human and chimp DNA, I'm gonna let a combination of articles from two sources speak here: "The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue: Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ car. They both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:18–23). If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food! We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are ‘read’ by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been anywhere near fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made (using a lot of computer time to do it—imagine comparing two sets of 1000 large books, sentence by sentence, for similarities and differences!). Where did the ‘97% similarity’ come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re–form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology). Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the ‘melting’ curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularised then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate. Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data ‘on faith’. Sarich et al. obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error—averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences: There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications. There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications. These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences. The DNA similarity data don’t quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim! Just because DNA sequences are similar does not mean that the same amounts of the proteins are produced. Such differences in protein expression can yield vastly different responses in cells. Roughly 10 percent of genes examined showed significant differences in expression levels between chimpanzees and humans. Gene families are groups of genes that have similar sequences and also similar functions. Scientists comparing the number of genes in gene families have revealed significant differences between humans and chimpanzees. Humans have 689 genes that chimps lack and chimps have 86 genes that humans lack. Such differences mean that 6 percent of the gene complement is different between humans and chimpanzees, irrespective of the individual DNA base pairs. What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross." "In conclusion, the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA is really in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find. The fact that many humans, chimps, and other creatures share genes should be no surprise to the Christian. The differences are significant. Many in the evolutionary world like to discuss the similarities while brushing the differences aside. Emphasis on percent DNA similarity misses the point because it ignores both the magnitude of the actual differences as well as the significance of the role that single amino acid changes can play." http://creation.mobi/human-chimp-dna-similarity https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/what-about-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/ |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by DoctorAlien(m): 1:18am On Feb 28, 2018 |
vaxx: Are you sure you're not alone in saying that this "evolutionary science" of yours is falsifiable? "First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Dobzhansky concludes that the “applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted.” Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution “cannot be refuted by any possible observations” and thus is “outside of empirical science.” Here's the full quote: "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." [Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, Sydney University). Nature, Apr 22,1967, p.352.] https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/ Before you inundate me with the "different ways in which evolution" could be falsified, I have one request to make: show me the very first unicellular organism turning into a multicellular one. By the way, here is an evolutionist, Paul Ehrlich agreeing that there is something called empirical science(aka operational science), as against historical science. |
Re: Darwinian Evolution Doesn't Pass The Scientific Test. by vaxx: 12:13pm On Feb 28, 2018 |
DoctorAlien:for now , evolutionary theory is proven to be fact but that those not mean it can not be upset at anytime, the rigorous of scientific principle can be apply to do so.... but unfortunately the theory is getting stronger day by by day..... the space at which evolutionary process happens does not mean it can not be observed by human. The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. go through this links, i am not given you just a single authority name, but multiple authority on biology research like you did ."Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation"https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/. if you are arguing because there was no direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. i just told you about about forensic science and DNA testing.Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow or when uni cellular organism turning into multi cellular organism. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution. ask me how? i have dealt on how unicellular turn to multi cellular, it is process that occur overtime, observation were made to ascertain this evidence. i presented a page for you to read through.... i am hearing those word for the first time(historical and observational science) and my own research shows that it is just a figment of your own imagination not science.... science is both observational and historical..... Evolution only study a process that occur overtime and not when it happens within a time 1 Like 1 Share |
How To Prepare Favour Attracting Soap / Do You Ever Bother About What People Thinks About You? / How Do We Know The Bible Is The Word Of God?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 112 |