open system theory applied to evolution., page-219

Bowral,

The reason that I believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory is based on several strands

We have been discussing the fossil record - that is one strand

The common features of genes throughout life that link species. I posted on the joined chromosome in humans that is very similar to the two in other apes species - even the end and middle markers are still in place. These markers are not required and are remnants, and would not have been put there by a creator. If this joining were not found in the precise location found it would disprove the notion that humans and apes have a common close ancestor.

There is plenty of evidence that mutations take place, and according to evolution many of these are bad. This is observed in practice - there are plenty of genetically inherited diseases to back this up. One would not expect this to be the work of a creator.

There are many design flaws in nature that one would not expect from a creator. The eye with its structure resulting in a blind spot is one example. Again one would no expect this to be the work of a creator, but the result of an evolutionary process.



As you mentioned, as you have studied evolution none of this would be new to you.

Anyway from a personal point of view if I am saying nothing new to a person who has studied evolution then perhaps I have a reasonable understanding of the theory - which I am pleased about because I have no formal education in the subject.

Ie advanced man living way down the scale of time in evolutionary thought,for example man living in unison with dinosaurs,advanced tools machinery evidence being found etc at a time when evolution assumes man was in a hunter gatherer stage,proof of advanced civilizations etc in assumed history,the whole story falls to shreds,too many basic scientific and historical problems to mention


If you can find good verifiable evidence that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs before their extinction 65 million years ago, then you would, according to my understanding, disprove the theory of evolution.

Video clip posted

I am aware of a debate, particularly in the USA as to whether creationism is classified as science or theology. In my view in order to qualify as science a way needs to be known of disproving hypotheses, should they be false - for example an out of place species such as human remains during the dinosaur era would do the trick. This means from a scientific point of view in creationism a starting point must be to acknowledge that a creator may not exist and there must be a way of demonstrating his/her nonexistence should he/she not exist.

As to the opposition that creationists say that they experience from scientists and the misuse of Darwinism doesn't in my view falsify the theory of evolution. The arguments that people who kill in the name of religion and oppose science likewise prove nothing about the existence or absence of God.

About micro-evolution vs macro-evolution. Do you agree with the points that I raised?

About disproving evolution. If indeed the second law of thermodynamics were found to be contravened by the theory of evolution that may be a fatal blow to evolution, and would cause other problems. For example it would kill the theory of micro-evolution as well pose problems about a seed being able to grow into a tree or a human being etc for the same reason.