|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution discussion with faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6048 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Again, I really don't want to have to deal with a long list of homework on this thread, such as at your link. If you would like to pick one example and explain the thinking involved in it, fine. Sheesh. Did you even follow the link to my post? It is to a straightforward narrative on how the ToE allowed a better understanding of cancer based on such things as fruit fly egg development. It's one example, not "a long list of homework." If it seems overwhelming to you, ask questions, don't dismiss it. Since further discussions of such examples are off-topic here, I suggest you post in the linked thread if you have questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK I'll look again -- later though. I had the impression it was a list of examples and sorting through them seemed a lot to ask. But maybe I didn't spend enough time checking it out. I do have an aversion to being referred to links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If you have no disrespect for this work, then you respect at least some evolutionary biologists. Likewise you also respect other biologists who are working from the Germ Theory of Disease, whether or not you see that the Germ Theory of Disease is of any use. I have no disrespect whatever for any science whatever.
The Germ Theory tells us why we get certain diseases (bacteria) which leads us to the solution -> use antibiotics to fend of said diseases. The Theory of Evolution tells us why said bacteria gets resistant to said antibiotics over time which leads us to the solution -> rotate usage of antibiotics so the bacteria doesn't have time to adapt. I've already answered this and it's only going to get tedious to keep repeating it. I don't regard any of this work as dependent in any way on the ToE. What you are calling the ToE I recognize as simply processes of variation and selection that creationists understand within a different explanatory framework. It's a definitional thing. You work with these processes, not with the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
For much of biology, ToE is the basis for much of the systematicity. This can't just be asserted, it has to be shown via an example for the sake of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I have no disrespect whatever for any science whatever. Excellent.
I don't regard any of this work as dependent in any way on the ToE. What you are calling the ToE I recognize as simply processes of variation and selection that creationists understand within a different explanatory framework. It's a definitional thing. You work with these processes, not with the theory. Indeed, you guys don't have a name for your theory of variation and selection...why don't you use the already existing name? I assure you, its the same thing. Creationism is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution - it agrees with it, Creationism has issues with the scientific hypothesis of origins and natural history.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This can't just be asserted, it has to be shown via an example for the sake of this thread.
I am not a biologist, so I will have to defer on most of the examples. But here is one. The system of plant and animal classification is based on the evolutionary tree. Before we had ToE, classification was based on the Linnaen system. That was close enough to the evolutionary tree that the evidence for evolution became impossible to miss. Today it is based on the evolutionary tree. The evolutionary tree is used, because it best fits the data. The Linneaus system was close to the evolutionary tree, because Linneaus devised it to fit the data. He just got it a little wrong, because the data was not as complete at that time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Indeed, you guys don't have a name for your theory of variation and selection...why don't you use the already existing name? For obvious reasons. It automatically suggests that there are no limits to the processes of variation and selection.
I assure you, its the same thing. Creationism is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution - it agrees with it, Creationism has issues with the scientific hypothesis of origins and natural history. OK. Then my criticism of the ToE should not get me accused of disrespecting science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The system of plant and animal classification is based on the evolutionary tree. Before we had ToE, classification was based on the Linnaen system. That was close enough to the evolutionary tree that the evidence for evolution became impossible to miss. Today it is based on the evolutionary tree. And this is based on what? Fossils or genetics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Does it make sense that the thousands of people getting PhD's and spending their lives studying vatious branches of Biology, Genetics, and several other life science fields over the last 150 years are so incompetent at generating explanations and testing them that very nearly all of them have been utterly wrong to base their research on the ToE? You will likely deny thinking all Biologists, Geneticists, etc. incompetent, but that is the only logically consistent position you can hold. My prediction held true, it seems! Clearly, if Biologists and Geneticists are supposed to be good at doing science, which consists of generating explanations and testing the consequesnces of the explanations, you must think that they are completely incompetent. If you reject the overarching explanation that they use in all of their work, the consequences of which that have been tested and found by these Biolofists and Geneticists to work perfectly well, then you must conclude that they are so poor at developing explantions and testing their consequences that they have continued to get it completely wrong for 150 years. Oh, and just to reiterate what others have said, the "processes" of imperfect replication and selection that you accept are the ToE. The ToE is not "based upon" these processes; the ToE is those processes. That's why you are an evolutionist, even though you don't think you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They DON'T "base their" research on the ToE. You haven't shown this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You accept the basic premise of the ToE, Faith, no matter if you realize it or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Then it's not the ToE, it's something else. That's the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yes, they do, and you have been shown. But here's another example. The entire field of Population Genetics is based upon the ToE being an accurate explanation of nature. IOW, the predictions that Population geneticists make wouldn't ever be fulfilled if the ToE was not correct. Here is an excerpt from the Wiki, which is pretty good:
Population genetics is the study of the distribution of and change in allele frequencies under the influence of the four evolutionary forces: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and migration. It also takes account of population subdivision and population structure in space. As such, it attempts to explain such phenomena as adaptation and speciation. Population genetics was a vital ingredient in the modern evolutionary synthesis, its primary founders were Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane and Ronald Fisher, who also laid the foundations for the related discipline of quantitative genetics. But this is really beside the point. Do you ageree that Population Geneticists do the same basic scientific work as all other fields of science; formulate explanations of natural phenomena and then test the consequences of those explanations? Or, are they incompetent at doing science? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 11:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You accept that allele frequencies in populations change over time due to imperfect replication and selection by the environment.
That's the ToE in a nutshell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I know. Their skill is developing explanations for natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of the explanations. ALL scientists do this, don't you agree?
quote: But then all a scientist is, using this definition, is a knowlegable lab or field tech.
quote: It is, however, the skill that is common to all scientists, and crucial for the basic work of science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024