|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) That is not the theory of evolution. As you have been told many, many times before.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
If I read Taq post correctly, he claimed that it is a "known lie" that Bouroune never uttered or wrote the words I quoted. To reiterate, in order make the claim something is a "known lie", one must have "known" proof that it is a lie. This is just simple, inescapable logic. You didn't ask for proof that it's a lie. You asked for proof that he never said that. The former can be proved, the latter cannot. Basic logic.
Message 151 Someone else addressed the question but I can't find it now. Some moderator posted a message to you linking to both my and the other replies. Bounore did not say that. Saying he did is a lie. Jean Rostand did say something close to that, but not exactly that. Quoting him as saying that is a lie. He also said "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution". As previously discussed and ignored by you, he obviously accepted that evolution occurs, but also thought that the theory of how this happened was incomplete at that time. That opinion is now way out of date.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations?("repertoire" is a french word derived from "to repeat") You can start an experiment with a single bacterium and grow an entire population from that single founder. What you will find is that 1 in a few hundred million bacteria will produce resistance to different kinds of antibiotic. This isn't a case of pre-existing variation. This is a case of mutations producing new characteristics.To humans, these mutations may may appear to be novel, but only because they haven't seen them before. (Consider swans: they were all considered to be white ... until blacks ones were discovered in Australia. The black was not a "new" variation, but simply an unknown one.) Secondly, as I have already pointed out, Peppered Moths were known to produce white and blacks variants, yet the process of natural selection they experienceddue to colour is nevertheless referred to as "evolution". This doesn't seem to support your claim that new characteristics differentiates evolution from natural selection.
common descent is a conclsion, not a theory.
Evolutionary biologists claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. How can you say this is not a theory? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations? How would that work exactly? 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 Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
NosyNed writes: Much more crisp!But evolving together isn't binary. They can be evolving together a lot or only a very little. That's where statistics comes in. If there is a statistically significant difference in allele distributions between two defined populations then you can objectively define "evolving separately".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: Almost right. However the mutations aren't produced in response to antibiotics. Samples of bacteria preserved from before the use of antibiotics (e.g. Franklin Expedition) have a very small proportion that are resistant. So wild populations have pre-existing variation which includes antibiotic resistance. As shown by the experiment, those variations are produced by mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: You have tautologised yourself into an illogical statement - the process of natural selection requires genetic variation in a population to be present in order for it to act. Think about it ... if there were no genetic variation in the population, all the relevant organisms would be exactly the same, so no particular strain of the population would be selected for survival. (In which case, the entire popularion would survive or the entire population would die.) That's why natural selection by itself is not the totality of evolution. You also need random mutations (with respect to fitness) producing new variations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one. Universal common descent is useful for explaining the distribution of characteristics amongst all life, which is a very useful theory in biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations? ("repertoire" is a french word derived from "to repeat") If you randomly pick a card out of a deck you will pick the same card with enough draws. Those are still random draws even though a pick is repeated.
To humans, these mutations may may appear to be novel, but only because they haven't seen them before. I said they are random (with respect to fitness), not novel. It is entirely possible for two populations to produce the same random mutation in the same way that you can pick the same card from two random draws.
Secondly, as I have already pointed out, Peppered Moths were known to produce white and blacks variants, yet the process of natural selection they experienced due to colour is nevertheless referred to as "evolution". That process includes the mutations that produce the two colors.
Evolutionary biologists claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. How can you say this is not a theory? Claims are not necessarily a theory. A claim can also be a conclusion drawn from evidence, which is the case with universal common descent. Conclusions and theories are two different things. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
There is a "fixed repertoire" in the sense that only a certain set of combinations are possible. But it's a really, really big set. Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations? Your task in rejecting evolution is to show why a subset of those possibilities would be fixed. For example, if the alphabet is your set of possibilities, you need to show why the combination AB is possible but the combination AC is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CRR writes: Taq writes:
Almost right. However the mutations aren't produced in response to antibiotics. You can start an experiment with a single bacterium and grow an entire population from that single founder. What you will find is that 1 in a few hundred million bacteria will produce resistance to different kinds of antibiotic. This isn't a case of pre-existing variation. This is a case of mutations producing new characteristics. Almost right. However, Taq never said or implied that the mutations were produced in response to antibiotics.
CRR writes: However the reason these resistant strains are at minuscule levels in wild populations is that the mutation is usually a defect that is detrimental in the absence of antibiotics. The mutations constantly occur and are constantly removed by natural selection. A similar situation applies to insecticide resistance in insects. Do you have any evidence that the mutations for insecticide resistance are detrimental? Can you cite any research papers that support your statements with regards to insects? Do you have any research that shows the resistance mutations in insects are constantly removed by natural selection? What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge says: "the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution)."
vimesey writes:
Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent.
That is not the theory of evolution. As you have been told many, many times before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent. ffs, there's a whole thread on that very subject that does exactly that. How many times? Are you really this dumb?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
He's a troll, just yanking chains.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one. Taq writes:
You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful. I suggest you have a very odd notion of what "useful" means. How times do you evo's have to be told? Theorising is not a use! Universal common descent is useful for explaining the distribution of characteristics amongst all life, which is a very useful theory in biology.Scientists have an explantion for why the sky is blue. Said explanation is not useful in any practical sense; it's just a theory ... an idea ... a story ... ink on paper. Scientists came up with String Theory to explain a certain observation, but String theory has no practical use. Do you see a pattern here? Coming up with a theory to explain an observation is not necessarily a use. In a similar way, universal common descent is a theory that attempts to explain an observation, but it is of no practical use. Take away the theory of common descent and every biologist in the world will be able to go about his work unaffected. Common descent is a useless idea. "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024