|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes: so they (creationists/IDists) can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution anymore Gee, I wonder why not? - could it have something to with the fact that it's pointless wasting time on a theory that's perfectly useless?
This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon. Really? In that case,please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world? Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so? It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think? ------------------------------------- As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
And Albert Einstein was a patents clerk, so what could he have possibly have known about physics? Says three persons who do not work in any biological field or have any biological training If you don't like the message ... shoot the messenger. --------------------------------------- Speaking for myself, re my education, I'll have you know it took my a mere twelve years to complete seven years of primary school education. You've got to admit that that's pretty impressive. After primary school I joined the work force and became a patents clerk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: I see what you did there .... That's pretty dishonest' What are you talking about? I merely asked how Darwinism has made facts more useful. My definition of "useful" is useful to applied science. Stop playing evasive word-games and try and answer the question. You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition of "useful" being practical or applied science Please give me an example of a "useful" scientific fact that is outside the realm of applied science.
For example, the various theories of electromagnetism... More evasion. I asked for an example of how Darwinism has made facts more useful - what does electromagnetism have to do with Darwinism?
Why should we pay any attention to such anti-science nitpicking?
In other words, your waving a white flag - you can't tell me how Darwinism has contributed to science in any practical, real-world sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
quote: You have been shown how the ToE is useful to science, simply repeating that it isn't to creationist loonies isn't going to change that.
quote: We don't study Darwin's work because it's 150 years old. It's history. He discovered the ideas that are now fundamental to all biology, but his book is not the bible - I'm prepared to bet that less than 1 in a thousand biologists have even read it. They're too busy reading modern stuff.
quote: That would be because the ToE is fundamental to all biology. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be taught would it? Perhaps your premise is wrong?
quote: There's nothing like leading with your chin is there? It's because people that are forced to deny proven scientific facts for purely religious reasons are worthy of riddicule.
quote: It seems to me that you have no knowledge of the scientific community. Darwin is just interesting history. It's probably fair to say that the ToE is barely mentioned outside teaching - evolution as a process is embedded in the biological regime - it's the organising principle behind all their work, but like oxygen is to breathing, it's simply taken for granted. Only a few weirdo religious fanatics are obsessed by it. And only because it interferes with their children's story book.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here. In your opinion. Of course opinions incompatible with reality are delusions ... if you want to discuss this further you can join me at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. So let's start with Message 1 on that thread and see where reality leads us:
We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms. To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be. The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results. I'm betting you won't, because the last thing YEC's want to do is see how badly their opinions are invalidated by the preponderance of objective empirical reality. Enjoy ps -- if you don't participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then any comments you make from here on are just you blowing smoke. Edited by RAZD, : psby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here. As a life long Christian raised in a Christian home and educated in a Christian school I am of course aware that there are errors, omissions and contradictions found throughout scripture as well as fantasy and "Just so Stories" and absurdities and evidence of the ignorance of the authors and folk tales and local legal practices and lots of other stuff. The Bible is simply an anthology of anthologies written by man and reflecting the people and era of the authors. That does not change the fact that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only viable explanation presented so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Yes, ok, but what difference has believing Darwin's yarn made to anything in the real world? First, it isn't Darwin's yarn. It is a theory that has been developed over 150 years by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Second, in the real world we now know the history of life and how species are related. That's the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Really? In that case, please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world? Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so? It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think? It's because the Theory of Evolution works. That is, it is useful and it explains things well. Simply put; it is a good tool. That's all there is to it. Added by edit:
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here. That's bullshit. I'm a Christian and I accept evolution - and that doesn't cause compatibility problems with my understanding of scripture. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Davidjay writes: Yes, totally agree, the theory of evolution contributes nothing to our knowledge of biology, NOTHING, Then please respond to any of my posts in the first 30 of this thread. In those posts I discuss just how the theory of evolution contributes to our knowledge of biology. For example, it allows us to understand the difference in divergence between exons and introns. It helps us explain the nested hierarchy. It helps us explain the distribution and divergence of orthologous endogenous retroviruses. It helps us explain biogeography. It helps us explain the fossil record. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: All evolution from the Ark IS microevolution, intraspecies variation built into the genome of the Kind, or descent with modification within the Kind; it's the ToE that forces the idea of macroevolution on us. How does creationism make sense of the fact that all complex eukaryote species fall into a nested hierarchy? How does creationism make sense of the fact of exon and intron divergence between different species groups, such as rodents and humans? How does creationism make sense of pattern of orthologous endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and other primates? The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution explains all of these things which makes it useful in the field of biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: Moroz? Yes he does disagree; as I noted in my post #53 when I said "What is revealing is that people actively promoting the importance of the theory of evolution admit that it is little used in day to day biology." That's a bit ironic given Moroz's CV. The very first hit from a Google Scholar search turns up this primary paper: "Deuterostome phylogeny reveals monophyletic chordates and the new phylum Xenoturbellida"Deuterostome phylogeny reveals monophyletic chordates and the new phylum Xenoturbellida | Nature That's as evolutionary as it gets. Phylogenetic analysis is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about, and Moroz uses it.
Another own goal. Douglas Axe discusses this "evolution" of antennas in Chapter 11 of "Undeniable"* where he says "As a finder of inventions, Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is a complete bust, but as we saw in chapter 7, it sometimes comes in handy as a fiddler. ... Fine tuning involves the adjustment of many small details, so trial and error is often the best way to do it." In fact I'd say it is more a trial and error solution aided by the power of computers than it is an application of evolutionary theory. *How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That life Is designed.Highly recommended. In which primary paper did Axe show that Darwin's mechanisms were a bust? Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: Running out of genetic diversity/ allelic options as new populations develop from old, especially as they near the point of "speciation" where their allelic options are severely reduced. Genetic diversity and allelic options are replenished by mutations that occur in every individual in every generation. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: However what we don't see, or at least I don't know of an example, is mutations adding significant amounts of new genetic information. All you have to do is compare the genome of two species. For example, you could look at the 40 million mutations that differ between the human and chimp genomes. Among those are the mutations that are responsible for the species specific features of those two lineages. If those don't qualify as mutations that add genetic information, then evolution doesn't have to produce genetic information as you define it.
What we see is consistent with the Biblical YEC view. How is the nested hierarchy consistent with the YEC view? How is the distribution and divergence of ERVs consistent with the YEC view? How is the divergence of introns and exons consistent with the YEC view? How is the existence of hominid transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view? How is the existence of reptile to mammal transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view? How is the relationship between parent-daughter ratios of isotopes in rocks and the fossils found below them consistent with YEC? These are just a few off the top of my head, and all these questions can be answered by the theory of evolution. I have yet to see a YEC even try to approach these questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: This is an area of ongoing research but progress is being made. See for example"Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins", Page Not Found . Tom Schneider has already done this work, and he has shown that evolutionary mechanisms do increase genetic information as it relates to Shannon's definition:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer. Then how does the biology teacher explain why life falls into a nested hierarchy? How does the biology teacher explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones? How does the biology teacher explain why we find reptile-mammal transitional fossils but no bird-mammal transitional fossils? I think you are speaking on topics you have no knowledge of.
Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world? Why do you avoid all of my posts, especially those on the first few pages of this thread? I demonstrated in multiple posts just how useful the theory is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024