Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,905 Year: 4,162/9,624 Month: 1,033/974 Week: 360/286 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do "novel" features evolve?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 174 of 314 (660151)
04-21-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
04-21-2012 12:47 PM


Re: It really is simple
I don't come here to read a textbook that will occupy 2 hours of my time before I reply to a point being made. Is there something about the posts you referred that you can tell me about, if it so supremely important to you? Argue with me; don't send me to the library for hours effectively making me disappear from the pages of our argument.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 04-21-2012 12:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 04-21-2012 1:04 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 177 of 314 (660154)
04-21-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
04-21-2012 1:04 PM


Re: It really is simple
Now, is there anything in that which you feel needs more explanation?
No. Why did you think I didn't understand that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 04-21-2012 1:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 04-21-2012 3:08 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 178 of 314 (660155)
04-21-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Coyote
04-21-2012 12:52 PM


Re: slightly off topic ... but we can redirect
Your argument is only as good as the evidence supporting it.
Here are some definitions that might help:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
How is anyone supposed to do any of that when typing a post? You still haven't told me what you mean by evidence. I have an argument that everyone refuses to address. You just told me how science is conducted. I ALREADY KNOW THAT!!!
What the hell do you fucking want me to do when you ask for evidence to support my argument? I said this outcome is not likely if such and such are true. Why can't anyone fucking tell me why that claim is false?
Edited by Admin, : Reduce number of consecutive exclamation marks, makes page too wide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 12:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:32 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 181 of 314 (660159)
04-21-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-21-2012 2:35 PM


Re: logic, assumption, opinion, belief, and the need for evidence
We are going to go around and around in circles until I get a full grasp of what you mean by support by evidence. You have not told me yet so I guess you enjoy going around in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 2:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 3:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 182 of 314 (660160)
04-21-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Coyote
04-21-2012 2:32 PM


Re: Evidence
The only claim I can find in this thread is the following:
Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. It cannot change keratin into collagen no matter how many different traits occur in a population. Message 52
You have already been shown by several posters how your claim is incorrect.
Where has my claim been shown to be incorrect and why do you feel it has been shown to be so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2012 3:06 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 184 of 314 (660162)
04-21-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-21-2012 2:35 PM


Re: logic, assumption, opinion, belief, and the need for evidence
I have a rock in my hand. This is objective empirical evidence that rocks exist. I tell you that I have a rock in my hand and I provide you with the means to verify this - a picture. Thus my assertion that there is a rock in my hand is supported by objective empirical evidence, and the FACT that I have a rock in my hand supports the assertion that rocks exist.
It isn't always possible to obtain the "rock" but that doesn't mean the "rock " doesn't exist or is a fantasy. Asking someone to provide that kind of evidence before they will consider the validity of your argument is a ridiculous requirement. If you won't consider any arguement I make until I provide you with the "rock" then I guess there is no reason for you to speak with me. That condition is impossible for anyone to meet. I guess that is why you always demand that condition of creationist's. You know it stops the discussion dead cold and you get to claim victory even though you were too chickenshit to try and dismantle the argument presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 2:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 185 of 314 (660163)
04-21-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
04-21-2012 2:53 PM


Re: Evidence
That doesn't falsify my claim because you are defining a new structure way too broadly. I define new structure as something along the lines of a tonsil. You cannot produce a tonsil from random mutation and natural selection where there was no tonsil before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:53 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 04-21-2012 3:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2012 5:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 207 of 314 (660202)
04-22-2012 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by JonF
04-21-2012 3:53 PM


Re: Evidence
I don't have a clue? Take your clue and shove it. I am out of here. I have had more than I can stand with you assholes . Good bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 04-21-2012 3:53 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2012 3:44 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 213 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2012 5:00 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024