|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What i can't understand about evolution.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
A while back in this thread I got the impression that Peg's picture of evolution is influenced by the basic misinterpretation of two iconic ideas. These are "survival of the fittest" and the general tendency toward more complexity we see in evolution. So, to get an idea if I'm right. I'd like to ask Peg two questions to which I hope she'll give an honest answer. Others, please refrain from answering the questions until we have a reply from Peg. The questions are:
1. In the phrase "survival of the fittest", who or what are being compared? In other words, with regard to who or what is the fittest deemed to be the fittest? Could you give an example of a pair of whatever it is you think is being compared, of which one is the winner (the fittest) and the other the loser (the less fit)? 2. Are "more complex" and "more advanced" the same to you? "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg, back again,'
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution Now is your chance to list all the ones you can find, and we will see who is hoaxing who eh?
Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes So bring out the Haeckel, sound the alarm on Icons of Evolution, expose the sham of archeopteryx, and whatever else you feel qualifies as fraudulent behavior or hoaxes perpetuated on the public. Be sure to list your sources. Enjoy. by 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: this does not inspire confidence unfortunately, but thank you for trying. Ah, creationist dodge #53 :"if we don't know it all exactly 100% perfectly, then it's worthless." What nonsense. Tell me Peg -What year was Jesus born? Oh, you can't tell exactly? Then Jesus can't be real unless we know ALL the details. Tell me Peg -What day did you turn into an adult? Oh, you can't tell exactly? Then you must still be a child. Faithful believers with 100% faithful belief in their faithful beliefs always fall for this basic error. K. Edited by Kapyong, : Minor fix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation? That's all you've got?A vague insinuation that ALL evolutionary scientists MAY be in fraudulent? The short answer is: No. The scientific process is specifically designed to stop this, by always questioning and improving. The opposite of creationism - which is stuck with a volume of ancient myths and never moves on. Here are the facts Peg - Over the last century or more, thousands of scientists in dozens of countries have performed a huge number of experiments, observations and testswhich could either: * confirm, or * disprove evolution. Probably 100s of thousands of such tests, experiments and observations in total (could even be millions.) Of that vast number of tests etc. there have been ZERO that disproved evolution. Got that Peg?After a vast huge number of tests - maybe even millions - there has NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE test that disproved evolution. But 100s of thousands, (maybe millions), of tests have CONFIRMED evolution. ZERO have disproved it. If there had been ONE single test, experiment or observation that disproved evolution then we would see creationists cite it in every post. Scientists have 100s of thousands, maybe millions, of FACTS to support evolution. Facts based on direct observation of nature. Creationists have a few books of ancient legends, but NO facts. K. Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given. Edited by Kapyong, : Minor additions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes: i really want to see a 'tree' that shows the roots ...ie, where it all began. perhaps i'm asking for something that does not exist? This is not altogether an unreasonable thing for you to want. It would be ideal if we could start from the root and build the Tree from there. It makes perfect sense. Except it's rather unfair to us. We simply are not living in a time from whence the root of the Tree of Life is easily studied. There's no getting around the fact that the origin of life was an inconveniently long time ago, and simply isn't around for us to study. What is around for us to study is a myriad of the tippy-top branches and a smattering of older ones. Since that's all we've got, what choice do we have but to start there? Why would you propose that we start with evidence that we don't have in order to explain the evidence that we do have? I have a hard time believing that that actually makes sense to you. I'm Bluejay. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5545 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Nebraska Man - all newspaper hype, the original scientist determined it was a pig.
May be you meant perpetrated?
Piltdown Man - hoax perpetuated ON science, exposed by science. Glen Rose Man - fraud perpetuated by Carl Baugh, exposed by science. Baugh (a creationist) continues to present it in his "museum" perpetuating his hoax to gullible people. China bird ancestor "fossils" - perpetuated by people looking to make money, exposed by science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Kapyong,
Although I am not a moderator, I would like to ask you to tone it down a bit in your replies to Peg. I think Peg is discussing things in a critical but positive spirit. You may not agree with Peg's arguments - nor do I - but please try to disagree in an agreeable manner. Just the facts and some sound logic, conveyed in pretty prose, is all that's needed to conduct a civil debate. And it'll keep your blood pressure down. But anyway, welcome to EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yes. but perpetuated by creationist sites.
by 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Okie dokie :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wardog25 Member (Idle past 5578 days) Posts: 37 Joined: |
Wow, I just looked through some of these final pages, and I no longer have any idea where this thread is going.
Tell me Peg - What year was Jesus born? Oh, you can't tell exactly? Then Jesus can't be real unless we know ALL the details I think the best guess I've seen is June of 2 BC. The estimate comes from observation of the planets and stars in conjunction with the Biblical account of Christ's birth. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
wardog25 writes: Wow, I just looked through some of these final pages, and I no longer have any idea where this thread is going. Trust me, this thread is not about Jesus. Kapyong has barely posted to this thread, and only very recently. Respond to members who have been consistent on-topic participants. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5019 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
quote: Wow way to entirely miss the point... Edited by killinghurts, : added quote Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote box (nice try though). You want the "/" part only at the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
you dont think its possible that evolutionary scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting the data to fit in with their preconceived ideas that life is a product of evolution and not creation? You don't think it's possible that Daltonian scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting their data to fit in with their preconceived idea that solids are made of atoms rather than being infinitely divisible?
there have been many scientific frauds in the recent past that show that some will go to extraordinary lengths for evolution No there haven't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes: You pulled a fast one on me. The old bait and switch or moving the goal posts argument. ... I take time out of my day to peruse the internet to look for some ape/human evolutionary trees and you pull this crap about wanting seeing the 'roots of the tree' on me. Thanks for wasting my time. now now, dont be like that! I actually did look at the web project...although i must admit, it wasnt as informative as i would have liked. It has lots of names and pictures but little explanation.
Devils Advocate writes: some (like myself) believe that abiogenesis as well as biological evolution are natural processes that don't need an initial supernatural designer. All three agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that biological evolution has and continues to occur; and all three are "unproven" hypothesis. Pasteur’s experiments of nearly a hundred years ago demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. We should still see spontaneous generation of life from non living matter but it just doesnt happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hi helper,
helper writes: Evolution is not random. It has no ultimate goal but natural selection gives a short term direction to the process. In the case of the crocodile as I mentioned stabilising selection has caused relative similarity for millions of years. its been mentioned by another poster (bluescat48) that evolution IS random hence why the crocodile is a remarkable example because how is it that in a world where all things evolve, this one species has not? That indicates that evolution is NOT random...it also implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow, or the current explanation is flawed and the reading of the fossil record is inaccurate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024