I can probably argue against evolution without biblical references? Anyone wish to hear my argument?
You do so at your own risk, per the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" that you had agreed to regarding speculative, personal theory.
You should also check out one of the many evolution FAQs available online, to see if your arguments have already been refuted. Try this one for example. If you want to speculate beyond what the forum rules allow, the JREF forum is a good place to do that.
Still if the man says he has references that are not religious then lets here him out. I think that is a very important part of science, because without open discussion I do not think any field of science will ever advance.
In response to the OP, I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments.
Yeah I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Send me a message with your argument please.
Very good. You should feel free to host or suggest a forum where anyone can post their personal speculation. PF is not that place.
If the OP has references from acceptable peer reviewed journals, then that's definitely fair game here.
Well as far as my common sense tells me, that is what the OP had in mind. By the way, I have done some of my own research and discussed certain topics on this such issue with Professors, and I have to honestly say there are a lot of problems with this Theory still. PF should not hide this fact just because the media "thinks" Evolution is complete and perfect; it is far from anything like that.
Hide what? Evolution has been accurately presented in this forum. Do you know what a theory is? Do you understand what the theory of evolution is? A theory is never "complete and perfect" to use your own words.
Not only does no serious scientist think evolution is complete or perfect but I'm pretty sure this "media" you speak of does not think that either.
I'd say you're trying to stir a pot.
What you need to understand is that PF is first and foremost a source for mainstream science (taught in schools). There are plenty of fora for flogging speculative hypotheses; this just isn't one of them.
Don't hold your breath for something new and exciting. I'd be willing to bet a rediculous amount of money that the idea the OP has is just one of the several typical/common misconceptions about evolution that we've all heard dozens of times.
Please do not get me wrong. I firstly did not try in any way to stir up a debate, or a pot? seriously? :). The only thing I was trying to say is I believe what the OP will talk about is clearly those areas in which we lack understanding. Obviously though, this is something we have to accept, and these areas which lack understanding aren't speculative hypothesis or anything, it is just a part of the working Theory.
Out of curiosity, what areas do you believe evolutionary theory to be "lacking"?
Well since I do prefer genetics myself mostly, I can only speak primarily about that area itself as related to evolution. One such question is how variation truly arises. I know the common mainstream answer: mutation. And although I agree with that answer to a certain aspect, as in primarily within single-celled organisms; I do not believe it is the only answer or even the main process of variation creation within higher-order species. The reason I ask this question, is because science has yet to provide any concrete example of a perfect variation according to mutations. Most of the experiments I have seen and read about have produced no new useful traits.
What is a 'perfect' variation?
What would you consider a 'useful' trait?
I have a feeling I know where this is headed...
Well why don't I ask you Mr. Dave what a useful trait. According to the Theory, a useful trait would be anything that helps the species or individual at least, become adapted to his new environment. That is all it is. As far as I know, most studies that have placed any form of stress or say change in the environment of a species have not produced a change in that species that was helpful to it in any way. This is obviously not true for single celled organisms which have immediate phenotype changes upon mutation.
You know I would love to actually hear something smart from you once Mr. Dave. All you keep doing is replying with one liners that aren't really helping this conversation go anywhere. Feedback would be appreciated. I assume that is what the role and goal of PF is, correct?
How about the experiment in which E.coli, by a sequence of random mutations, developed the new ability to digest a different abundant food source (and ceased to be E.coli)?
Needs citations to the studies.
I’m interested to know Gokul43201 what your opinion of the type of contributions I offer is. Believe me, I am not fishing for compliments, I have a serious point to make. If these forums really are only for contributions from well studied people with the capability to offer citations for every assertion, then clearly I should leave. I have made no secret of the fact that I am a layman, and I simply do not possess that ability. I do, however, believe I have something to contribute to the discussion with thE3nigma. I have nothing particularly to offer to DR henegar, I share the scepticism that his or her argument will offer anything remotely original, and I also have a deep suspicion, borne of experience, about the good doctor’s true motivations.
So, thE3nigma, discussions on these matters tend to be littered with assertions like ‘…clearly those areas in which we lack understanding.’ And almost invariably, they cite some area in which, in fact, the understanding is very good. You mention a ‘preference’ for genetics, and if by that, you mean that you have genuine knowledge and experience of formal study in that area, then you almost certainly know a good deal more than me. But your post (#16) does reflect a recognisable naivety, one that I freely admit I was once a possessor of, but that I improved from, purely by a little bit of reading and by engagement with forums like this one.
Before I offer you a very good example of a study that identified ‘a change in a species that was helpful to it’ let me just offer one piece of terminology that might seem like hair splitting, but actually, I contend, is significant. Rather than ‘useful traits’, most of the knowledgeable people I have read tend to talk about traits that offer a ‘selective advantage’. The study that I wanted to mention is so familiar to this discussion I can even refer to its usual formal title: ‘Industrial Melanism in the Peppered Moth’. Briefly, the basis is this. The peppered moth originally had an essentially white colouring, with speckled black patterns that varied between individual moths. During the era of industrialisation, because of pollution, lichens had a tendency to become sooted and blackened. Because lighter coloured moths stood out more against this dark background, predators found them easier to catch, and having darker colouring thus offered a selective advantage. Within just a few generations, peppered moths became predominantly black in appearance. Then along came the clean air act, and lichens returned to their natural green colouring. Suddenly it was the darker moths that stood out the most and within another few generations, peppered moths had returned to their former colouring. This is only one example of observed, naturally occurring evolution, and even industrial melanism is not exclusive to the peppered moth.
Gah, read more. quit confusing me, and try not to insult people please, we are here to learn. Get your facts lay them them straight. 10 minute search =
Not all assertions need citation. Many are common knowledge and/or generally uncontroversial.
Some assertions beg for a citation. For example when someone says that they have read papers that claim XYZ, it is automatically incumbent upon them to cite some of these papers. If you as discussing a scientific study, it is not an unreasonable requirement that you have to cite the study so that others may read it too and therefore be able to better understand or challenge any arguments that are based on that study.
Peppered moth evolution is ripe hunting ground for any well-read proponent of creationism/ID. Heck, there may be more Creationinst literature in that field than there is from Biology!
Thank you, smarty-pants!
It's your job to give us better citations for your references, not ours to have to hunt them down.
I tried before asking.
Your first hit (creationwiki) is actually relevent, it raises questions as to the validity of my example.
Separate names with a comma.