Comment Re:what are they talking (Score 1) 556
Predictions can be made on survival rates, changes in population, genetic drift, and so forth. The interesting thing here is that you can get real numbers and concrete predictions. Whether you understand or have used these techniques does not, in any way, decrease their predicitive power. I will admit that, unless you actually use the science, it would be easy to say that there is no predictive power but that is only because of ignorance of how the science is actually used. It's like a relative of somebody who died from cancer saying that there are no effective treatments for cancer. They are just incorrect, not out of malice, just out of ignorance of the facts (in fact, there are treatments for many cancers, just not all of them). Don't let your lack of understanding of the predicitive power of the "Darwinism" (and I hate to use that word) make you make silly and inaccurate statements about something you obviously don't understand. As it currently stands, "Darwinism" has strong predictive power while "magic" (which is about as accurate as "Darwinism" in this context, has none).
What exactly, then, does Darwinism say about the universe that is predictable? All your comment does is demonstrate perfectly how Darwinism is a theory that explains everything but predicts nothing.
This is a completely inaccurate statement borne of a misunderstanding of what "Darwinism" is and isn't. It also shows a lack of understanding of science anyway.
Regarding life, the similarity of the genetic code between living things is cited as proof of their common ancestry. I understand the possibility of there being separate origins of life, but it does nothing for the defense of Darwinism.
Once again, we have a rift between science and your view of science. "Proof", especially as you use it, is completely incorrect. Seriously, saying proof is one way to make yourself look like an idiot in the scientific community. What you meant to say was that is is cited as "evidence". This may seem arbitrary to somebody with no scientific background but the difference is crucial. Back to your arguments, though, once again they are confused and obviously written with an agenda. "blah blah blah... understand possibility of being separate origins of like... nothing for the defense of Darwinism". I'm sorry, and maybe I missed something, but what does one have to do with the other. It does nothing for the defense of "magic" either. It does not offer evidence or, in your terms "proof", one way or the other. Using something with no informative power, stressing that, and then expecting it to support your point of view only because it doesn't support a different one is very... suspect reasoning. Here is an equivalent: "I understand the possibility that my hat could be on fire but it does nothing for the defense of the current administration's approach to the budget deficit." What does one have to do with the other? I could have just as easily wrote "I understand the possibility that my hat could be on fire but it does nothing for the defense of the criticism of the current administration's approach to the budget deficit." I used the same approach to argue for the other side and it makes just as much sense. Or, to paraphrase you: "I understand the possibility of there being separate origins of life, but it does nothing for the defense of magic." I guess what I am saying is that you don't make any sense, you take anything that isn't evidence one way as evidence the other way, for apparently no reason in particular. You have a right to your beliefs but spouting off inaccurate and logically flawed statements is not helping your cause. It's about as helpful as using the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument against evolution (an argument, by the way, still used by "magic" supporters around the country despite numerous published, concrete, mathematical proofs that it does not preclude evolution; interesting note here, you will notice that the math and proofs only disprove the use of the 2nd law as contrary to evolution, it does not "prove" anything. This is science, try it sometime, you might like it!).
Have a great day.
