Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 273 of 936 (805262)
04-17-2017 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
04-17-2017 5:02 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Faith writes:
They don't know that, tangle. There's this segment of the gene that has the order of a transposon, which leads to the assumption that it was originally a mutation. Not evidence, assumption.
quote:
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
THAT is a research finding. It IS a mutation and it IS evidence. It's a change in gene structure - one bit stuck into another bit - the wrong bit in the wrong place. An error. They can even date the mutation event. It can't possibly get clearer than that.
quote:
Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex.
Maybe someone with access to the actual paper and some real knowledge of genetics can give it to you in detail.
I don't know Faith, we're now at the point where absolutely no evidence is good enough. I know that's your position but it's still impossible to watch and believe it's happening.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 04-17-2017 5:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 374 of 936 (805845)
04-21-2017 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by CRR
04-21-2017 4:56 AM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
CRR writes:
Actually this is what happens.
No it's not. As you well know, two balls of the same size will fall at the same speed regardless of their different weights. This is totally counter-intuitive.
The heavier one has greater mass/surface area and will be less affected by air resistance.
The heavier one can quite easily be the smaller. But how did you come to know this? Science told you, be grateful for the methodology.
Since nobody lives in a vacuum common sense is based on actual experience.
And this is why common sense can't be relied upon.
But even so it allows a prediction to be made that can be tested and falsified or not. Observing that falling cannonballs APPEAR to fall at the same speed allows us to improve our understanding and predict that in a vacuum all objects will fall at the same speed. This hypothesis can then be tested.
Well finally you accept the point being made. This hypothesis testing is the basis of all science and is the antithesis of religious belief. Things like the TOE were built scientifically by testing these hypotheses against observations. By doing so it destroyed the 'common sense' idea that all life on earth was put here all at once as we see it now by a god.
There is no evidence to support that 'common sense' idea.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 4:56 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 6:23 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 376 of 936 (805849)
04-21-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by CRR
04-21-2017 6:23 AM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
CRR writes:
Consider a soap bubble and a ball of lead, both exactly the same size. Which will fall faster? The difference in weight here is enough to produce an observable difference. The soap bubble falls quite slowly. I have seen this.
To coin a phrase "Oh, good grief"
What is it with you creationists that make you so disingenuous? is it because you have no winning arguments of your own that you have to do this constant denial of known science?
Bubbles with more often RISE in the air. I'll leave you to work out the atmospheric and physical properties of each to work out why.
In Galileo's experiment the effects of air resistance was small for both balls and the difference in how fast they fell was not discernible with the experimental equipment used.
EXACTLY. it was an incorrect 'common sense' assumption.
Evolution has many failed predictions to its credit! See here
.DarwinsPredictions
Depending of course on how you define evolution, and that is the topic of this thread.
Well, despite my better judgement and breaking the rules of this site I had a look. I skipped to the conclusion and note that the use of the word "evolutionist" puts this as a creationist document which is not a good sign. But this comment made me certain that this is a pile of garbage
This raises the question of how evolution fares without the metaphysics. That is, how does evolution compare with the scientific evidence? Evolutionary theory holds that the biological world (and more generally the cosmos as well), arose from the interplay of chance and natural law. In other words, evolution holds that the species arose spontaneously.
Evolutionists believe that the cosmos and the biological world arose spontaneously indeed.
Start a new thread if you want to discuss these claims
Edited by Tangle, : Quote Code error fixed

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by CRR, posted 04-21-2017 6:23 AM CRR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 455 of 936 (806245)
04-24-2017 3:32 AM


Is there some inherited trait - I dunno, maybe, stupidity - that prevents creationists using the quote system that this board provides so we can see who's responding to what easily?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 502 of 936 (806650)
04-27-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by Dredge
04-27-2017 3:29 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Dredge writes:
Ok, so the mutations appear to be independent of the antibiotic.
As stated, the mutations are random with respect to fitness.
In that case, all I see going on with antibiotic resistance is natural selection - bacteria mutate before and after the toxin, but it's still no more than natural selection.
And that, dear chap, is evolution - descent with modification caused by random mutation followed by natural selection which allows those bacteria with beneficial mutations to survive and reproduce.
Natural selection alone can't account for how all life evolved from a common ancestor. so in this sense, antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution.
Hohum. Mutation followed by selection causes evolution.
On the other hand, if bacteria mutating can be called "evolution", then ok, bacteria "evolve". Therefore, saying "bacteria evolve" is just another way of saying "bacteria mutate".
Bacteria mutate. Then natural selection ensures that those random mutations that confer a resistance to the toxin - if any - survive to further reproduce.
That's evolution in a nutshell and it's a very simple concept.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:29 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Dredge, posted 04-30-2017 12:35 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 511 of 936 (806766)
04-27-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Taq
04-27-2017 3:14 PM


Re: If Not, What?
He's already admitted he doesn't - he's resentful that science has noticed how species work.
I was thinking about this earlier; evolution was a discovery not an invention, there was no way it wouldn't be noticed by enquiring minds. And to any reasonable mind, it's both obvious and wonderful.
There's stacks of practical uses for the ToE - I was only reading today how ecololgy uses it to predict the outturns of environmental changes, but even if it had no practical value whatsoever, it's an amazing thing in of itself. I have a feeling that like the people that mapped the stars movements before it had any practical value, the uses of the ToE are only just beginning to emerge.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Taq, posted 04-27-2017 3:14 PM Taq has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 525 of 936 (806989)
04-30-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by Dredge
04-30-2017 12:35 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Dredge writes:
You can call antibiotic resistance and example of "evolution" if you like,
Translation: it IS an example of evolution.
but I fail to see how it can be used as evidence to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
Well it's a single example of an organism mutating and adapting - it's not meant to support the entire edifice of common descent. For that we have mountains of evidence from the fossil record, taxonomy showing nested hierarchies, molecular genetics showing the inter-relatedness of species and the evolutionary process intself demonstrating how it came about - one small example being the evolution of anti-biotic resistence in bacteria.
In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. But genetics science cannot demonstrate that mutations produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA.
You just made an unsupported assertion - it's not necessary for DNA to be unlimited. And you used the 'I' word. This daft information argument has been shown to be wrong so many times it's just tedious. If you want to argue it, go to one of the many threads that do it. I wish you luck.
The mutations seen in bacteria are like a merry-go-round ... they are constantly in motion but they don't actually go anywhere.
Where do you expect them to 'go'? They're bacteria doing what bacteria do. To use the expression 'they're still bacteria.'
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Dredge, posted 04-30-2017 12:35 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 541 of 936 (807139)
05-01-2017 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 539 by Dredge
05-01-2017 1:13 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Dredge writes:
Well, my definition is wrong and I have to admit to another mistake: I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but half an hour ago I discovered that I was wrong. Oh dear ...
It's a conclusion flowing from the ToE.
Why do you think you can comment so provocatively - and so erroneously - on the ToE and biology in genereal, without even a vague understanding of what it is?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 1:13 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 542 of 936 (807140)
05-01-2017 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by Dredge
05-01-2017 12:24 AM


Re: Dobzhansky
Dredge writes:
I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology.
Let me re-order and rephrase that.
You're opposed to the ToE because it contradicts the bible.
The other two items are simply required beliefs created by the first.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 12:24 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 545 of 936 (807149)
05-01-2017 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by CRR
05-01-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:
You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that. See Evolution - Wikipedia
What is it with you guys? What is it you're objecting to?
No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory. It's a prediction/conclusion of the theory and it's obvious from the 'tree of life'. It doesn't mean that all life came from the very first life - although it may have done.
quote:
The last universal common ancestor (LUCA), also called the last universal ancestor (LUA), cenancestor, or (incorrectly[R 1]) progenote, is the most recent population of organisms from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common descent.[1] LUCA is the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth. LUCA should not be assumed to be the first living organism on Earth. The LUCA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[2][3] The composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA.[4]

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by CRR, posted 05-01-2017 6:18 AM CRR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 568 of 936 (807304)
05-02-2017 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by Dredge
05-02-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Dredge writes:
Thanks for that CCR. Wow, this is such a convoluted subject
This reminds me of Trump suddenly noticing that the job of being a President is quite tough and not like his day job. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Yes biology is a convoluted, complex subject that we're only just really getting to grips with. But if you chose to study it properly instead of reading the lies about it from your creationist web sites you'd find the basics quite simple to grasp.
you don't who or what to believe! When someone mentions "the theory of evolution" or "evolution" you really need to get them to explain exactly what they mean. It seems to me that there are least three theories of evolution!
There is only one theory of evolution, but there are several ways of describing it from the simple
"change in a population over time"
to the technical
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
to the descriptive
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
All these definitions - and all the others - are differening ways of descibing the same thing. It's a pity you prefer to spend your time deliberately finding ways to misunderstand - you might have better arguments against something you can't accept for purely dogmatic reasons if you started by trying to understand what the subject is rather than making it up.
If you continue to argue from ignorance like you are doing now, you can't hope to change anyone's mind about anything and you make yourelf look silly. At least argue the real facts instead of your 'alternative' facts.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 1:55 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 621 of 936 (807665)
05-04-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 604 by Dredge
05-04-2017 3:12 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Dredge writes:
And you are pathetically, ludicrously wrong.
Actually, you're right; so I'll go back to something like my original definition of evolution. In biology, the word, "evolution" can't be separated from Darwin's theory, which obviously has common descent at it's core. The gratuitous, ubiquitous and misleading use of the word, "evolution" in the biological sciences is always an allusion to Darwinism, which I reject as false, useless and irrelevant.
So to hell with ToE, just give me biology and I'll be happy. As Danno used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am." (Danno would have made an excellent biologist ... but a lousy evolutionist.)
When I become King of Australia I'll ban the teaching of ToE at all levels of education, thereby draining the swamp that the once-noble science of biology has become, liberating and cleansing it from the mendacious theology of atheist cultism.
Evolution = Biology + the atheist cult of Darwinism
Idiocy.
That's all really, just 100% stupid. Congratulations.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 3:12 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 622 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2017 4:05 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 634 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:18 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 623 of 936 (807673)
05-04-2017 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 622 by RAZD
05-04-2017 4:05 PM


Re: Where are we now?
RAZD writes:
Actually it's Cognitive Dissonance and the Backfire Effect plus a little Dunning—Kruger effect added for you to
Sometimes simple is best.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2017 4:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 636 of 936 (807722)
05-05-2017 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 634 by Dredge
05-05-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Where are we now?
Dredge writes:
That's not a very nice thing to say.
Truth often hurts, but I'm guessing that you'll get over it really quickly.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 6:18 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 650 of 936 (807847)
05-06-2017 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by CRR
05-06-2017 3:25 AM


Re: Where are we now?
CRR writes:
Darwin was arguing for descent from one or a few original forms.
Well yes, that's what this was all about.
He came to that picture - his hypothesis - from the evidence he'd gathered from fossils and his ideas about changes over time leading to speciation.
Darwin of course knew nothing of the genetic code. Since then we have discovered the genetic code and that it is universal with only minor variations. Hence most evolutionists today believe there was a universal common ancestor.
So I would say that today universal common descent IS an important part of the theory
Yes, Darwin's ideas were later confirmed by DNA.
And again yes, common descent (not necessarily universal) is an important part of the theory. It's actually integral to the theory - it's a result of the evolutionary process.
But so what, why are you so obsessed with it? Why do you think it helps your arguments in any way?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 3:25 AM CRR 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