@shepherdless: lol, you are applying an ENORMEOUS double standard!
There are things the standard model does not explain like dark matter and other things that falls outside its scope. but within what it tries to explain it is pretty damn precise. tell me a single experiment that it has failed?
evolutionary theory on the other hand have no explanation for a bunch of stuff, like the origin of thought.
so if you want to say the standard model has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt bc it does not explain EVERYTHING (like dark matter), you got to apply the same principle to evolution.
Well, I won’t get involved in your discussions with others.
There is no double standard.
The Standard Model should really explain dark matter. It is supposed to explain all particles. Also, it hasn’t really been verified by that many experiments, as they are expensive, time consuming, and dealing with cutting edge physics.
The theory of evolution on the other hand, has been verified in countless ways, and there are no longer any mysteries of any significance.
When I was at University, I remember a chemistry lecturer stating that DNA was always a right hand spiral, and nobody knew why. (I remember at the time that some creationists at the time were making an anti-evolution argument based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet on the right hand spiral issue, creationists would have had a legitimate point to raise, but none seemed aware of it.) That mystery has since been solved. I didn’t know it had been solved until I read one of Cofty’s threads.
Since then, I don’t know of any legitimate argument against evolution. I don’t count appeals to emotion as legitimate arguments. There is plenty of info available about this topic.
You raise the “origin of thought”. Well, you may have noticed that many more sophisticated animals can apply some very basic abstract thought. Your cat will go to the door, look at you and meow, to go outside. Crows have been shown to be able to count up to 5, etc.
But why are we far smarter than any animal? The answer is simple. About 1.2 million years ago, a creature known as homo erectus started to learn how to make fire, and not long after, started to learn how to cook with fire. Brains use a lot of energy, and natural selection meant that an animal of any sort tended to have a brain just big enough to allow it to carry out necessary functions. If it had too big a brain, the animal would be at a disadvantage as it would require more food to survive. That changed with the use of fire. Cooked meat gives about 20% more energy (and is safer); many vegetables release more energy after being cooked. Food could be stored. Suddenly, a creature such as homo erectus had a massive advantage if it had a bigger brain, and had abstract thinking ability. The species spread across a large part of the planet; it was the second most successful hominid (apart from ourselves) in colonising the planet. One branch of homo erectus got even better at abstract thinking, and was our ancestor.
I hope that answers your question.
