The Lowly Fruit Fly Befuddles the Evolutionists

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

A whole bunch of people who write textbooks disagree with you.
What do you base your opinion on?

 

[Narapoia]

Science is oridnarily befuddled with problems. That's because science is actually set to hunt, trap and kill actual real-world problems...Science thrives on reality blowing up its hypotheses to arrive at knowledge, and even seeks for it to happen and adjust its theoretical superstructure.

I guess that explains why science is blowing up evolution.

Yes, the scientific community has been throwing fossils, chemistry, physics and genetics relentlessly at the idea of evolution-natural selection. It is now one of the most powerful ideas in science and the foundation of our understanding of biology and achievements in medicine.

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

Well that claim is clearly bullshit. The reason why is actually contained in your statement. When you remove evolution from biology you reduce it back to being nothing more than a descriptive exercise.

Here is a discussion article from the Journal of Infection and Immunity. Biology started off as an exercise in description. As information and evidence was collected people began to develop hypotheses and test them. The result was evolutionary theory. If you remove this from the field of biology you remove the theoretical centre-piece that weaves a range of scientific disciplines into a coherent whole. Evolutionary theory is a result of the evidence we have examined, it does not exist apart from it.

Moreover, the descriptive sciences of taxonomy, anatomy, botany, and paleontology have been central to the development of evolutionary theory, which remains the linchpin of all biological sciences

and

In microbiology and related medical sciences, the transition from descriptive research to hypothesis-driven research has generally reflected the maturation of these fields. In the early stages of a field, descriptive studies may “represent the first scientific toe in the water” (9). Initial observation and induction give rise to novel hypotheses, which subsequently can be experimentally tested to provide a progressively detailed mechanistic understanding.

Doing as you suggest would not only be incredibly unscientific it would reverse over 150 years of scientific endeavour in the field of biology. Once again you seem to be at loggerheads with actual scientists in your opinion of how science should be done.

 

[Malintent]

You insist that 'complexity' is a problem for evolutionists, without ever actually showing that complexity is a problem for evolutionists.

Researchers saying 'this is whoo-dang complexical' are not befuddled researchers.

This shouldn't be in a 'Religion Vs. Science' forum. It should be in a 'just preaching' forum.

Are you aware of any evolution research that has demonstrated that biological processes can produce increasingly complex organisms? The creationists look for such things and they have not found any.

Oh, so you're here on this thread to make an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. How novel of you, rhutchin!

Of course, it was the evolutionists who perfected the art of arguing from ignorance.

My arguments regarding the complexity of living organisms is being shown in research. I have cited a couple cases in separate threads and will cite more when I find them. You, of course, are encouraged to bring our attention to studies that support evolution.

what you are calling "whoo-dang-complexical" is not only not a problem for the description of the mechanics of biological evolution, but in some ways are a prediction of the theory of evolution... you got it all ass-backwards. Your article (and millions of others) is completly persimious with the theory of evolution... in what way are you under the notion it is not??

 

[Malintent]

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

A whole bunch of people who write textbooks disagree with you.
What do you base your opinion on?

emotional outbursts of "I ain't no monkey".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

A whole bunch of people who write textbooks disagree with you.
What do you base your opinion on?

emotional outbursts of "I ain't no monkey".

Someone at work shouted that his daddy wasn't no ape.
I said that was a bad thing to say about his Mom.

 

[Kharakov]

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

Umm, what are you going to call it when a new species gradually emerges due to genetic drift? Purposeful exploration of different forms of life?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing in science depends on a knowledge of evolution. Take evolution out of the science textbooks and just describe genetics and biological processes and science will do fine.

But taking science out of the science textbooks is NOT 'science doing fine.'