Author
|
Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 181 of 189 (410515)
07-15-2007 2:08 PM
|
|
|
We're drifting off-topic again
IamJoseph raised the issue of how speech developed in man as an example of a critical weakness of evolutionary theory, not as an example of convincing evidence. I think those who want to discuss the evolution of speech should go to another thread. This thread is for proposing and dissecting examples of compelling evidence for evolutionary theory. --Percy
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 182 of 189 (410575)
07-15-2007 10:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by RAZD 07-15-2007 11:33 AM
|
|
Re: Try this:
quote:
Yes, the issue is not really evolution per se but common descent -- and the agreement of evidence with the numbers of common ancestors as you go back through the evidence. The main problem for the "genesis model" is the disappearance of human then ape then primate then mammal etc etc as you go back in time. Enjoy.
Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 178 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2007 11:33 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 183 of 189 (410592)
07-16-2007 2:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by IamJoseph 07-15-2007 10:45 PM
|
|
Re: Try this:
Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras/ I'm mildly curious as to what you think that means, and why you said it.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 182 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 10:45 PM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 184 of 189 (410595)
07-16-2007 5:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by IamJoseph 07-15-2007 10:45 PM
|
|
Zebra this
... when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras. Zebras already talk - just because you can't understand them doesn't mean they don't tell a story. The story they tell is evolution -- the kind of evolution this thread is about, and the evidence they are for it. They are on topic. The story that creationists tell on the other hand (with comments like this), is that in spite of supposed human speech and communication ability, they do not understand evolution at all ... or forum guidelines. You are not on topic. Enjoy. Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer, compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 182 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 10:45 PM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
Message 185 of 189 (410959)
07-18-2007 6:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy 07-15-2007 2:08 PM
|
|
Re: We're drifting off-topic again
quote:
IamJoseph raised the issue of how speech developed in man as an example of a critical weakness of evolutionary theory, not as an example of convincing evidence. I think those who want to discuss the evolution of speech should go to another thread. This thread is for proposing and dissecting examples of compelling evidence for evolutionary theory. --Percy
Sure I can nominate the best candidate of what constitutes the strongest evidence for evolution. Its the 'seed', quite a comprehensive term for a factor which can carry and pass on all required data. If there be any disputation of this factor, the best way is by elimination - and here a counterpart to this thread would help. How can one nominate the best candidate if they are not certain what does NOT apply. How about a thread, MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION? Its called the 'devil's deciple' principle, and it works.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 181 by Percy, posted 07-15-2007 2:08 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 186 of 189 (410970)
07-18-2007 9:03 AM
|
|
|
Request for Moderator Assistance
This thread might represent an opportunity for moderators to discourage members from swathing the topic in layers of illogic. Better a thread sit idle than descend into nonsense. Participants in this thread who would really like to discuss some other topic are hopefully aware that any member may propose a new topic over at [forum=-25]. --Percy
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 187 of 189 (411944)
07-23-2007 10:26 AM
|
|
|
The most convincing evidence that creationism is wrong is that there is no usable definition of "biblical kind" -- and the reason that this is evidence for evolution is that this is what makes such a definition impossible. Most attempts at definitions depend more on example than on criteria (a dog is a dog, all descendants of dogs will be dogs), and those that do try to draw some kind of criteria use evolution language. Note that AiG specifically states
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
quote: For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we: 1. Avoid the use of the term ”microevolution’. 2. Rethink our use of the whole concept of ”variation within kind’. 3. Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic. ...It is no wonder that evolutionists are keen to press us for an exact definition of the created kind, since only then does our claim of ”variation is only within the kind’ become non-tautologous and scientifically falsifiable. ...What then do we say to an evolutionist who understandably presses us for a definition of a created kind or identification of same today? I suggest the following for consideration: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.
LOL Enjoy Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer, compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
Replies to this message: | | Message 188 by Percy, posted 07-23-2007 10:37 AM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
Message 188 of 189 (411946)
07-23-2007 10:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD 07-23-2007 10:26 AM
|
|
This is off-topic, and I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, but I would like to briefly note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind:
AIG writes: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. This would change their "You only get dogs from dogs," argument to "You only get life from life." And who could argue with that! --Percy
This message is a reply to: | | Message 187 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 10:26 AM | | RAZD has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 189 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2007 1:52 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 189 of 189 (411992)
07-23-2007 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy 07-23-2007 10:37 AM
|
|
I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, This is not an argument that NOT(creationism) = evolution, but that the evidence for evolution has such depth that any definition of kind immediately runs into problems with that evidence or with the separation of animals into distinct kinds.
...note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind: So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. Case in point. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : not Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer, compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 188 by Percy, posted 07-23-2007 10:37 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|