|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Instead of calling natural selection. "evolution", why not call it, "natural selection"? I do.
Instead of calling antibiotic resistance, "evolution", why not call it "antibiotic resistance"? I do.
How about, "the bacteria have ... developed ... resistance to the antibiotic"? But that doesn't distinguish between evolution and phenotypic plasticity or ontogenesis.
Or better still, come up with a term that reflects what has actually happened - ie, that a minority of the original population that were always resistance have multiplied and taken over the joint. But that is not the thing to be described in this case. (Though we do have a word for that. It's also called "evolution".)
Dr. Adequate: "... creationists ... should find another word for it." Maybe replacing "microevolution" with "applied biology" would work. That was a bizarre non sequitur. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything." Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them. You can in fact trust scientists. What you can't do is trust them and believe your halfwitted religious dogma. I see that you've made your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Creationists don't reject anything that is useful in applied biology, so your claim that "creationists are ... inherently anti-science" is baseless. "Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else. You have made my case for me. Creationists think they can pick and choose from science, accepting some things and rejecting others for religious reasons. The fields they reject they do their best to undermine. We see that on a daily basis here, and we see it throughout the country in creationist's efforts take over school boards (Dover) and to mandate their beliefs in school text books (see the recent efforts in Texas, for example). (See posts from Faith and Davidjay for additional examples.) There is no way these efforts can be seen to be supporting science--they are clearly anti-science. You have even included the "good science vs. bad science" nonsense in your post, referring to "anything that is useful in applied biology." You clearly mean to exclude evolution, much of geology, genetics and a few related fields that disprove your beliefs as "science which is not useful."
Name one creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology. Young earth; global flood ca. 4350 years ago. If these beliefs are acted upon they impost a worldview that is completely at odds with the real-world evidence. Given her posts and beliefs, Faith would not be a very effective geologist, for example.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2351 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Creationists are logical and rational, rather than believeing in magic mutations. They usually understand that SCIENCE was created, laws were created (SEE THREAD on LAWS WERE CREATED and did not evolve).
In other words, the Creator (Jesus) created science, and is the GREAT MATHEMATICIAN, ARCHITECT, BUILDER, and GREAT SCIENTIST. Evolution denies science and gets into their theory of religious evolution as their saving grace and deliverer.. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Creationists are logical and rational... You disprove that claim with every post you make here.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
The primary problem that creationists are faced with is that they hold beliefs derived completely from their fallible interpretations from their fallible Man-made theologies, beliefs that are contrary to fact. And they made their entire belief systems completely dependent on those false beliefs, such that if any one of those false beliefs turns out to be false, then according to their faulty theology that would completely disprove their religion and their gods. Such an event is inevitable, since those beliefs are contrary to fact and to reality.
Reality disproves those false beliefs, so they must ignore reality. Since science is one of our best tools for discovering and studying reality, they must ignore it as well. But, they also love their computers and their flush toilets, so they cannot reject science completely. So they cherry-pick science keeping the parts of science that gives them the technology they want while selectively rejecting and ignoring the parts they don't like. Anyone familiar with science knows that you cannot do that, that all of science must hang together. But creationists don't think that way. They think theologically, which means that they feel free to accept some parts and ignore others -- that is exactly what they do with their own religion. And they think that they can change reality simply by redefining a few words, something that does not and cannot actually work, but again something that they do with their religion all the time. Those actions are indeed anti-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10044 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Davidjay writes: Creationists are logical and rational, rather than believeing in magic mutations. Creationists are illogical and irrational because they deny that mutations happen even when we can observe mutations occurring both in the lab and in the wild.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall. That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population. This belief would obviously affect biological inquiry. Then I'd like to see HOW it would do so with HBD's scientific work.
It also happens to be that pet theory that you have spent countless hours failing to convince anyone of, and for which there is no biological evidence. Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more. Yes it is a pet idea of mine, it forms part of my overall model which I tried to spell out in that post. I believe it makes for a consistent coherent model which is all I had in mind as a comparison since HBD rightly says a framework is needed for what he does. Doesn't really matter if you are convinced of it, or he is, or anybody is (since the ToE is a bunch of garbage anyway), the point is that it does amount to a coherent model that could be applied.
At a minimum, if there is no evidence for this, ca-ca, then it cannot be taken as a postulate. Of course I dispute that the ToE has any evidence, it's all speculation and imagination, so your objection is worth ca ca.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation. What do you think that the second law of thermodynamics says, Faith? Oh here come the Pedantic/Semantic Police. Could not care less NN how it is defined. I despise these word games you all substitute for debate about concepts. I've gone back to the post and exchanged "entropy" for the Second Law. Things running down, general deterioration and loss, sun going to burn itself out, and although it is denied by the ToE the fact that DNA is deteriorating and will ultimately do us all in, is part of this. But I put that in a separate entry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall. That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you are talking about? And why would events requiring a working second law be a problem in the Bible?, which is what you seem to be implying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That would be the "bias" that suggests that if you want to use selective breeding as a model for evolution you should look at those breeders whose methods are closest to evolution in the wild - instead of deliberately excluding them from consideration ? Edited by PaulK, : Correct tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Breeding is a way of illustrating the essential effects of selection. Other factors unnecessarily complicate the point, introduce elements that only slow down the ultimate effects of selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
That doesn't change the fact that other breeders better represent evolution in the wild and would be better models if accuracy was your intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Accuracy ISN'T my intent; my intent is to present the most salient feature that defines the process of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
in other words you picked a poor example because it supported your opinion. It is hardly "bias" to point that out or disagree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024