if you want take a theory that is supported by mountains of evidence from all aspects of the natural sciences and accepted almost unanimously by the world's entire scientific community, reaching a level of consensus shared by nothing that has ever been proven wrong, and call it an assumption, then you might as well be agnostic about the earth revolving around the sun. there is no intellectually valid agnostic position on common descent, or on the vast majority of species that have ever lived now being extinct. we can just as easily and safely deduce the truth of these things from the evidence available as we can anything else in science. the exact percentage of extinct species doesn't really have relevance to what the point was, anyway. the contention was that if natural selection were true we would expect to see numerous species failing and going extinct. obviously we DO see no less than hundreds of thousands of species going extinct, both currently and in the fossil record.
Tell me more about this "revolving around the sun" theory... Are you considering all possibilities there? Have you considered Intelligent Revolution?
That's so far from the truth, I don't even know where to begin. Since you seem to actually believe that pile of bullshit, I won't even try, though. I will say that the earth revolving around the sun has been observed, though. There is no need to be agnostic about it. I mean, were you trying to be funny when you wrote your post? You're just really, really bad at science.
See, statements such as these demonstrate to me the pointlessness of continuing this conversation. The closed-mindedness is astounding and frustrating.
As long as we're calling scientific credentials into question, can we get your CV, PapaG? In what field did you get your degrees? Are you published?
Why would it? We know life came into existence, because life exists now. All evolution talks about is how life divided into species. How life came to exist in the first place isn't what evolution attempts to explain. Einstein's theory of gravity doesn't explain how life came into existence either. The reason is because that's not what the theory is about. Requiring a theory to explain things that it doesn't regard is an odd requirement to have.
I have a B.S. for my ungrad. Still, it doesn't even take that to know the difference between an evolving theory of evolution compared to observed science that is based on know facts (such as orbiting, and how it relates to gravity). What's your CV, other than making snarky comments in this thread w/out offering any substance?
No, just because there's consensus doesn't mean it is sound. But then, where do we draw the line at what constitutes a real criticism? Find any scientific principle and I can "create" a question about it, if standards of adhering to measured science aren't necessary. That isn't hard. What I was saying is that the people who understand the theory best don't believe that transitory systems ("half an eye," "half a respiratory system") are unexplained by evolution. It really is a theory, in that it has met the standards of evidence and predictive power of a theory. If you mean that maybe it isn't true, that's within the realm if possibility. All of science is a model of what we've observed and measured. Better models replace worse models. Until a superior model is developed, evolution will be the accepted one. If a superior model is developed, evolution (or whatever parts of evolution that the new model replaces) will be discarded.
BS and MS in physics, current PhD candidate. Published twice so far, once as first author. Multiple presentations at major scientific conferences around the country. Also, (for what it's worth) MANY posts of substance in the various other science-related threads on this very OT forum. I've got nothing but respect for your basketball takes, but it doesn't seem like you are in a position to call someone else "bad at science".
SlyPokerDog knows less about science than a 10th grader yet tries to act like he knows the most on this board. The ignorance of the religious knows no bounds. Also PapaG is the greatest scientist to ever live, whatever he questions cannot be answered You're all ridiculous
i'm stating facts. the level of evidence and scientific consensus for common descent and majority of species being extinct is equal to that for the earth revolving around the sun. the former involves no more assumption on the part of scientists than the latter. unless you buy into creationist propaganda misrepresenting the situation, which you arleady cut and pasted from.
Man, go from denying that being gay is natural, to saying being gay is against natural selection, to denying that natural selection exists! This whole thread is bogus. I mean, a person may seriously wonder how being born gay squares with natural selection. A serious person might .... Go to a library or bookstore and read up on evolution of human sexuality and sexual variation in the animal world; Contact a professor of evolutionary biology and ask for his/her views and a suggested reading list for lay persons; Go online to any of the very good science blogs run by actual scientists, which include many on evolutionary biology, and pose the question. A serious person does NOT go to a sports board full of self-proclaimed homophobes and science denier and say "gee, being gay can't be natural because in my totally inexpert opinion based on no facts that would contradict natural seletion which in my inexpert opinion never happened anywhere". A person who does that is just looking for validation for homophobia. You know "I'm not a bigot, it's just that I proved being gay is unnatural by posting on a sports board".
