|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
Chuck77 writes: Can you provide the evidence that natural selection is responsible for this? That's not one of the 15 questions. But the answer to it is "yes".
Chuck77 writes: Show the evidence that supports Natural Selection as the mechanism for this. That's not a question. It's a command.
Chuck77 writes: May as well do #2 also since you respond with the same unsupported answer. Chuck77 writes: Also explain chemical evolution too. How where when did it start? That's not one of the questions either. The claim of those creationists is that they can stump evolutionists with 15 questions. If you have to keep adding more, then you're showing them to be wrong. Anyway, question 17 from Chuck. How?: by chemical reactions. Where? On earth. When? About 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. Now, ask me another question if you want to prove that evolutionists cannot be stumped by 17 questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
BT writes: You stole my thunder and added a lovely cadence to it. *Panda, I hope I have not stolen your thunder here but his reply was to my post. Looking at the length of reply you made to but a single question (and even then you skipped a lot of the detail), I doubt Chuckles would ever have the stamina to read a full and complete set of answers for all 15 questions.tbh: he didn't even understand the 'short answers' I gave. But you are welcome to try and teach those who refuse to learn.Have at them! If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
hey Percy,
I think you meant to say, "Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as *natural selection*?" Nope. The CMI website and the 15 questions use this definition of evolution -
CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree withand this is what the dispute is about!
(Source:15 questions responses 1 - creation.com) The first question for evolutionists is - How did life originate? This question is based on their belief that the General Theory of Evolution and Biological evolution are the same thing. They believe that if they can discredit the General Theory of Evolution, it disproves biological evolution. The General Theory of evolution and biological evolution are two different animals.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
ban this spam
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Either way is good. Tho, the way you are both handling the 15 questions speaks volumes.
Then let's see how you handle this question. Chuck, why do you molest children?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence. We will do that once CMI supports the assertions in their questions. For example, they claim that "living fossils" are identical to their fossilized bretheren. Where did they support this? They also claim that there are no transitional fossils. Where did they support this assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution. Like others have said, laws and theories are different things. I would suggest you read Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory". It is short and easy to understand. Here is my favorite quote from the essay: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." Scientific laws are the facts. A law is a formalized description of the observations. A law is a description of the world's data. Theories attempt to explain the observations. The law of gasses tell us that as temperature increases so too will pressure. The theory of atoms attempts to explain why we observe this relationship. We observe that humans and chimps are different while still sharing a common ancestor. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how this can be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Please show where I said that a theory will become a law. Please quote.
Lol
Mikey writes:
Message 66 If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution. Your still saying it after you deny it.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Your still saying it after you deny it. I think Mike is being misunderstood here. I don't think he' arguing that the Theory of Evolution should be elevated to the status of a Law. I think he's saying that if laws are simply facts of the universe, evolution, the fact, should be considered a law. And I think that could be true. Law of Evolution: Populations change over time. Theory of Evolution: The change is created by the changes in alleles due to mutation in the genetic code filtered through natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Well that would be plain silly. If he feel this way then why arent these laws?
1. The Atomic Theory2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy 3. The Cell Theory 4. The Germ Theory 5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics To name a few.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Well that would be plain silly. If he feel this way then why arent these laws? I agree, but I'd like to see people caling his ideas silly for what they are, rather than what they may be misunderstood to be. Laws pretty much are no longer made, as far as I know. Maybe every theory should have a law made out of it to show that what the theory is explaining is in fact a real phenomenon. Of course, the only theory people need to be reassured on is evolution...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Butterflytyrant
Nope. The CMI website and the 15 questions use this definition of evolution -
CMI’s definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree withand this is what the dispute is about!
(Source:15 questions responses 1 - creation.com) This is typical equivocation of meanings. The process of evolution (change in hereditary traits and the frequency of their distribution within breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological challenges and opportunities is not the same as the Theory of Evolution (ToE). The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. Neither of these are a "General Theory of Evolution". Curiously, doing a google on ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) does not get me to pages dedicated to biological science, but to pages dedicated to creationist misrepresentations. The top contender there is conservapedia . . . and when I use google scholar I get Safarti not science. Reference is made once again to Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. and Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. Then I looked up Gerald Kerkut Gerald A. Kerkut - Wikipedia
quote: It looks to me like quote mining in progress, and an author that may have been careless. In any event this is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and a book written in 1960 is hardly an up-to-date reference even if it had been peer reviewed or used as a text book. Amazon.com
quote: It appears to be online atImplications of evolution : Kerkut, G. A : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive But I am having trouble downloading it. More later. By contrast I offer these definitions of evolution:
University of Michigan definitions of evolution:
quote: and Berkeley University definition of evolution:
quote: The sources here are universities teaching biological evolution. Also see Introduction to Evolution (not yet promoted) Enjoy References
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4422 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hey ZD,
You are preaching to the choir. My whole point in my original message that Percy was replying to Message 127 was that CMI was using a (deliberately) confusing definition of evolution. I went on pretty much the same journey chasing the definition they used as you did. I dont agree with thier interpretations. My (thus far unanswered) question to Chuck77 - Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution? He seems to be supporting the 15 questions so I wanted to know if he had learnt so little in his time here that he supported the CMI definition. It was a question specifically for Chuck77.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Butterflytyrant,
I've had some time now to review the book online fromFull text of "Implications of evolution" quote: That doesn't look controversial, especially for 1960. A lot has happened in the field of abiogenesis, and a lot has happened the field of cladistics of early life forms, and we have much more evidence than was available in 1960. Curiously, searching for the phrase "General Theory of Evolution" it get all the way to the end (p157) before I get to the quote in question:
quote: This is the quote mine (underline and color added for emphasis). There is only one other place that this phrase is mentioned:
quote: Now "not capable of experimental verification" would mean that this "General Theory of Evolution" that he alone proposes is not a testable scientific theory. Certainly this is not a theory "that secular scientists would agree with" -- in fact even HE does not agree with it. He says these assumptions are questionable and may not be true. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and hi again, Butterflytyrant,
You are preaching to the choir. Understood: I was adding my 2¢ worth.
Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution? I've seen a number of creationists argue that there is a "General Theory of Evolution" or a "Grand Theory of Evolution" but I've never seen a version accepted by a group of biological scientists. See Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone), Message 8 (09-19-2006) where Murkywaters was quite adamant that he had a valid definition\approach for evolution:
quote: Wot a surprise. It seems there is one and only one source for this wondrous theory ... 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024