Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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


Message 721 of 936 (811017)
06-04-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 718 by Dredge
06-04-2017 5:36 AM


Dredge writes:
I don't doubt "common descent" either ... or "evolution". But I don't accept that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Sort this out for us.
How old is the earth?
If you deny human and chimp common descent then you DO reject common descent and evolution - so are you able to explain what you mean?
which makes perfect sense if all life was created by the same Creator.
And no-one could prove you wrong if you mean that some god thing created a molecule that could copy itself and went on to form all life on earth. But that isn't what you mean is it? Or is it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Je suis Mancunian.
"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 718 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2017 5:36 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by Dredge, posted 06-07-2017 3:39 AM Tangle has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 722 of 936 (811022)
06-04-2017 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 718 by Dredge
06-04-2017 5:36 AM


I don't doubt "common descent" either ... But I don't accept that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Contradicting yourself. Humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor is part of common descent. If you doubt one you doubt the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2017 5:36 AM Dredge has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 723 of 936 (811061)
06-04-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Dredge
06-04-2017 5:36 AM


Dredge writes:
wikipedia writes:
All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organisation
... which makes perfect sense if all life was created by the same Creator.
A lazy Creator. And an unimaginative one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2017 5:36 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by NoNukes, posted 06-04-2017 5:17 PM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 724 of 936 (811071)
06-04-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 723 by ringo
06-04-2017 2:53 PM


A lazy Creator. And an unimaginative one.
Unimaginative?
I've always had a problem with this kind of argument. Regardless of the method or technology involved, life on earth shows a huge amount of variation both in form and in strategies for survival and reproduction. What then should be made of claims that the final designs are all tediously based on DNA? Not much I think.
Lazy? And just what is the level of effort required to create life on an entire planet? Is it harder than tensor calculus?
Of course, the argument does accomplish the purpose of providing an irritant to a theist by casting aspersions on his deity. Perhaps that is the only real purpose of the argument.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 723 by ringo, posted 06-04-2017 2:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 726 by ringo, posted 06-05-2017 11:46 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 731 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 6:05 PM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 725 of 936 (811143)
06-05-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by Dredge
05-01-2017 1:03 AM


Re: Dobzhansky
The theory of evolution can be used in applied biology.
Yes, of course, but the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor has no use in applied biology.
No, that's not true. It does have use.
But, to give you an inch, it isn't necessarily required in all of applied biology.
And that's because, as I said, that applied biology is basically just really complex chemistry. It is on a more micro-scale that where the process described in Theory of Evolution operates - which is on phenotypes and at a more macro-scale.
Make sense?
ABE: Also see: Message 558
Granted, but ToE is used to conclude that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The two theories have virtually become synonymous; the mentality is, if ToE is true, then so is the theory all life evolved from a common ancestor - which is what Dobzhansky was on about.
Not quite right - they are not "synonymous",
Common decent comes from the ToE being applied to the empirical data that we've uncovered. Without the additional data, the ToE does not get to Common Decent all on its own.
The ToE would work just as well with, say, all life coming from two common ancestors, or even more.
Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 1:03 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 726 of 936 (811144)
06-05-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 724 by NoNukes
06-04-2017 5:17 PM


NoNukes writes:
Regardless of the method or technology involved, life on earth shows a huge amount of variation both in form and in strategies for survival and reproduction.
We're not talking about form or strategies for survival here. We're talking about biochemical organization. Why would a designer use only one possibility? Why use DNA at all? For that matter, why use chemistry at all?
NoNukes writes:
And just what is the level of effort required to create life on an entire planet?
Three sentences:
quote:
Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
quote:
Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
quote:
Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by NoNukes, posted 06-04-2017 5:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2017 3:40 PM ringo has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 727 of 936 (811179)
06-05-2017 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by ringo
06-05-2017 11:46 AM


We're not talking about form or strategies for survival here. We're talking about biochemical organization. Why would a designer use only one possibility? Why use DNA at all? For that matter, why use chemistry at all?
What is unimaginative or lazy about using chemistry or DNA?
A designer might very well repeat strategies that work. How does your argument compare to the argument that a designer would not develop vision, flight, or echolocation using different methods? In my opinion, both arguments are fubar. Designers might reuse systems, but they also might create a variety of systems. Why do the vast majority of cars and trucks rely on burning petrol? But then why are some moving systems using natural gas, while others are completely electric?
And why couldn't a designer build some basic prototypes and then allow evolution to fill in the rest? Wouldn't that explain some of the similarities we see?
I think there are ways to question the design choices of the putative ID man, but I don't think questions like why use DNA are very good questions. DNA systems seem to work quite well. Why avoid them?
Here is a goofy question. Why are all living systems biological?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by ringo, posted 06-05-2017 11:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 6:17 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 739 by ringo, posted 06-06-2017 12:00 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 728 of 936 (811189)
06-05-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Dredge
06-04-2017 5:36 AM


I don't doubt "common descent" either ... or "evolution". But I don't accept that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Likewise I don't doubt the ability of evolution to produce multiple species within each created kind, and since humans are a separate creation from the apes then humans don't share a common ancestor with chimps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2017 5:36 AM Dredge has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 729 of 936 (811190)
06-05-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 725 by New Cat's Eye
06-05-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Dobzhansky
New Cat's Eye writes:
Common decent comes from the ToE being applied to the empirical data that we've uncovered.
The tree of life, common ancestry, came first, as in Erasmus Darwin's book. It was a common idea at the time. Charles Darwin was attempting to provide a scientific explanation for this.
Darwin in "Origin of Species" drew the inference that all life had descended from one or a few common ancestors and expressed his opinion that it was only one.
Common descent has been part of the theory of evolution from the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-05-2017 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2017 5:59 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 738 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-06-2017 9:54 AM CRR has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 730 of 936 (811191)
06-05-2017 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by CRR
06-05-2017 5:55 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Common descent has been part of the theory of evolution from the beginning.
Then you should be used to it by now.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 5:55 PM CRR has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


(1)
Message 731 of 936 (811192)
06-05-2017 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 724 by NoNukes
06-04-2017 5:17 PM


And just what is the level of effort required to create life on an entire planet?
After you've already created the planet and the entire universe? Not much at all. God didn't NEED a full day to fill the sea and air, or a full day for all the land animals. The creation week established the pattern of one day of rest in seven. The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by NoNukes, posted 06-04-2017 5:17 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2017 7:29 PM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 732 of 936 (811194)
06-05-2017 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 727 by NoNukes
06-05-2017 3:40 PM


NoNukes writes:
What is unimaginative or lazy about using chemistry or DNA?
Nothing. It's brilliant design to come up with an information coding system that can be used in all life from amoeba to whale. It works a lot better than Microsoft Windows.
And why couldn't a designer build some basic prototypes and then allow evolution to fill in the rest?
Which is what he did. God created the kinds with the potential to adapt and diversify to adjust to different environments. Brilliant design; well, a lot better than what I could do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2017 3:40 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 740 by ringo, posted 06-06-2017 12:03 PM CRR has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 733 of 936 (811196)
06-05-2017 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 731 by CRR
06-05-2017 6:05 PM


After you've already created the planet and the entire universe? Not much at all
The Bible describes God as resting after his efforts in creation. The connection is explicit.
I know it is popular to assume that God's store of energy is infinite and is never replenished, but that is not what the Bible says.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 731 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 6:05 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 06-05-2017 7:59 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 735 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:17 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 734 of 936 (811200)
06-05-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by NoNukes
06-05-2017 7:29 PM


God needs nothing
The Bible describes God as resting after his efforts in creation. The connection is explicit.
I know it is popular to assume that God's store of energy is infinite and is never replenished, but that is not what the Bible says.
Really? Because it says He rested??? But as CRR said, the Sabbath was made for man. God doesn't need anything, not rest, not Replenishing, nothing. Sometimes scripture describes Him in human terms to make it easier to relate to Him, but the overall portrait of God is of infinite and unwavering power, never needing anything, never suffering loss, just infinitely giving and loving.
Mal 3:6 writes:
For I am the LORD, I change not;
Acts 17:25 writes:
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2017 7:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 750 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2017 12:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 735 of 936 (811202)
06-05-2017 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by NoNukes
06-05-2017 7:29 PM


God rested
The Bible describes God as resting after his efforts in creation.
As Sarfati says in "the Genesis Account", p283, the Hebrew word is the waw-consecutive of shabat and the primary meaning is cease or desist, which includes ceasing work. There is no reason to think this specifically means God was tired after 6 days of creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2017 7:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by NoNukes, posted 06-07-2017 3:08 PM 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