|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Yes, sorry; your defintion of evolution is heritable change in a population. So what's this got to do Darwin? Heritable changes in a population has been a known fact for thousands of years. Yep. Millennia, even. Darwin proposed a theory of how it happened. A distinction which you appear to be unable to comprehend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
People were clearly already well aware of the mechanism of natural/artificial selection and its effect on a popularion, so what did Darwin come up with that advanced knowledge of "evolution" (ie, heritable changes on a population)? They were not already well aware that the process, when continued for long periods of time, resulted in wildly different species. Darwin figured it out and called his book "Origin of Species". It was about how different species originated; i.e. how they came to be different species.. Edited by Admin, : Fix use of bold dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
He said the respective observations can just as easily be used as arguments for Intelligent Design! Easily said. Much more difficult to demonstrate. Let's see the arguments for ID based on that evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Not what he asked for. Homologs are not required for mutations to accumulate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA. Their definition of "function" differs greatly from the common one in biology and even they have admitted that they way overstated their case. Transcription does not equate to any meaningful definition of biological function.
On the Meaning of the Word "Function"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Talkorigins is chock full of evidence disproving your fantasy so you go with the ad hominem fallacy. Obviously that's all you got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I didn't say Talk Origins is an atheist web site quote: Your claims are recorded. Don't lie about them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What is it with creationists and all/some/none?
I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases. Logic fail. You wrote:
Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species. Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What is a kind and how do we find them? You left out the critical part specifying "how do we find them". What science needs is an operational definition. Simply put, given two arbitrarily chosen species A and B, what procedure do we follow to tell if they are the same kind or different? Referring to information that is both practically and theoretically unavailable may not be part of the definition. E.g. some "original" genetic makeup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that? That information was in the linked article. Read it. No operational definition of "kind" there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But I have previously given my definition in Message 644 No operational definition of "kind" there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Biologists regularly cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. Antibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection. Nope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old. Nope.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
... to the creationist the source, the authority, is more important than the validity of the information, while for the scientific thinking people the validity of the information is more important than the source. Well put.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024