|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
I am a Bible-bashing, God-bothering, science-hating, fundamentalist, Jesus-freak, "creationist loon" ...and according to Dr. Adequate's definition of "evolution", I'm an evolutionist too! Imagine that - one can reject the theory of evolution and still be an evolutionist. Amazing!
According to the good doctor's definition, all those creationists who reject ToE are evolutionists, for no creationist will deny that that "Heritable changes in a population" is a fact. Here - at long last - is a practical use for ToE (the one and only): Medicine is definitely useful and laughter is the best medicine. So thank you, Doc, for this medicine!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
What you offered are merely examples of biology which don't rely on the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. If you bothered to examine each example on the list with an open mind, you would find this to be true.
The power of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe should never be underestimated. For some reason or other, I"m reminded of Jack Nicholson's immortal line from the movie, A Few Good Men - "You can't handle the truth!" ---------------------------------- Sorry, I must have overlooked your peppered moth inquiry. My understanding of the peppered moth saga is that there existed white and black varieties. When the soot descended it blackened the trees, thereby affording the black moths a survival advantage (ie, camouflage) and so the black moths came to dominate the population. Later, when the soot was no longer present in the environment, the trees became a lighter colour, which meant the white moths were able to make a comeback. What's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Before Darwin and his theory came along, I doubt if my alien/redhead scenario would have been called "evolution". But nowadays, evolutionists call it "evolution" because they consider it evidence that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. Natural selection is an integral part of ToE, so any example of natural selection qualifies as "evolution". The idea that this misleading terminology wants to convey is, If natural selection is a fact, then ToE is a fact - that is to say, it is a fact that all life evolved from a single-cell organism.
If this fallacious spiel is repeated long enough, dogmatically enough and ubiquitously enough, a lot of folks start to believe it. Then having been thoroughly conditioned into accepting it as correct, it is difficult to accept the dissenting views of creationists. ---------------------------------------------------- Recently I read an article entitled "Evolutionary principles and their practical applications", and the terminology used is interesting. Basically, wherever the words,"biology" and "biological" would be appropriate, the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" appear instead. So the article should really have been entitled, "Principles of biology and their practical application." None of the principles and uses discussed in the article were dependant of the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. If no one had ever heard of Darwin and his theory, this article would contain exactly the same material, because whatever advancements have been made in applied biology would have been made regardless of ToE. This bizarre re-naming fetish is akin to someone removing the "Ford" badges from a Ford car and replacing them with "Volkswagen" badges. So strange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "If you've quite finished making a fool of yourself..."
You would contend that natural selection is an example of evolution - therefore I believe in evolution because I believe natural selection is a fact. So in effect, I am an evolutionist. The fact that a creationist like me - who categorically rejects the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell orgaism - can nevertheless be an evolutionist is proof that the definition of evolution as (ab)used in biology is seriously flawed. What is needs is the inclusion of the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. -------------------------------------------- ... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "You are not an evolutionist."
The only way to stop creationists like me claiming to be evolutionists is to include the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell-like organism in the defintion of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Can you explain please the chronology of your cited "not uncommon evolutionary event"? I'm confused. When did the mutation that confers immunity (to the antibiotic) arise - before the introduction of the antibiotic or after?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If the antibiotic came first, this means the mutation that confers immunity wasn't present in the original population. So how did any bacteria survive the antibiotic if none of them had the immunity mutation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "You are not an evolutionist."
Why am I not an evolutionist? What is your definition of an evolutionist? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "And would CRR and Dredge like to tell us what the right word for evolution is - if not evolution?"
Instead of calling natural selection. "evolution", why not call it, "natural selection"? Instead of calling antibiotic resistance, "evolution", why not call it "antibiotic resistance"? ------------------------------ How about, "the bacteria have ... developed ... resistance to the antibiotic"? Or better still, come up with a term that reflects what has actually happened - ie, that a minority of the original population that were always resistance have multiplied and taken over the joint. -------------------------------Dr. Adequate: "... creationists ... should find another word for it." Maybe replacing "microevolution" with "applied biology" would work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't know what your job entails, but I am sure that if I could somehow remove the theory that all life shares a common ancestor from your consciousness, its absence wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the efficaciousness your work ... because I am sure all the biological principles you rely on would still be applicable. Think of it this way, a Bible-bashing fundamentalist creationist who thoroughly rejects the aforementioned theory, on rhe other hand, rejects nothing that has proved useful in applied biology.
As I've said before, if no one had ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory, applied biology would be none the poorer and just as advanced as it is now. herebedragons: "No amount of definition shifting, mathematical ciphering or personal credulity will be capable of convincing scientists to abandon ToE. The reason: because it works." I would agree that applied biology works. Perhaps it's the case what you call ToE, I call applied biology. But what doesn't work is the theory that all life shares a common ancestor - a theory that cannot be put to the test nor has any practical application cannot be said to "work".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Creationists don't reject anything that is useful in applied biology, so your claim that "creationists are ... inherently anti-science" is baseless.
Name one creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything."
Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
So the lucky surviving bacteria, having been exposed to the antibiotic, develop an immunity to it. This sounds similar to how a vaccine works, except instead of becoming immune to a disease (polio, for example), the bacteria become immune to a toxin.
It's a demonstrable scientific fact that some organisms develop immunity to certain diseases, but I've never heard of an organism developing immunity to a toxin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1: "Therefore, bacterial immunity to certain toxins is diferent. Right?"
Of course! Keep your hat on! I merely meant that there is a vague similarity between the two - ie, immunity to A develops by exposure to A; immunity to B develops by exposure to B. I've never heard of bacteria (or any organisms) becoming immune to a toxin by exposure to it. Is this a demonstrable scientific fact, or just another baseless Darwinist assumption invented to fit their theory? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote: ""Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else."
Creationists not only accept all scientific pricipals that have proven useful in applied science, they also accept all scientific theories that have been verified by observation and experiment. These facts don't support your hypothosis that creationists are "anti-scientific". Creationists may however, reject scientific theories thatcannot be put to the test. For example, I don't put any faith in String Theory, Quantum Loop Theory or Parallel Universe Theory, because they can't be tested and therefore their veracity can't be established. So there are many scientific theories that I don't accept and for reasons that have zero to do with religion. This is not being anti-scientific, just sensible. (The Catholic Church teaches that scientific facts will never contradict the Catholic faith, because truth cannot contradict truth.) But what is decidedly anti-scientific is calling a theory that cannot be put to the test a "fact". Can you think of an example of this sort of abuse of science? I can. ----------------------------------------------------- I asked you to name a creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology. You responded by claiming that a young-earth creationist would not make a very effective geologist. Firstly, not all creationists are young-earthers - me, for example; I'm an old-earth creationist.Secondly, I was talking about applied biology, not geology. Thirdly, I suspect that there is no reason why a young-earth creationist wouldn't make a competent professional in the field of applied geology.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024