Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 751 of 1311 (814733)
07-12-2017 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Dredge
07-11-2017 6:08 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge says: "the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution)."
vimesey writes:
That is not the theory of evolution. As you have been told many, many times before.
Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent.
Equivocation fallacy. Common descent is not the same thing as a single common ancestor/
The theory of evolution can (and does) refer to common descent of related species without saying there is a single common ancestor, thus Vimsey is correct AND evolution theory talks about common descent.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Dredge, posted 07-11-2017 6:08 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 752 of 1311 (814746)
07-12-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 749 by Faith
07-12-2017 11:03 AM


Re: Funny -- not really
Faith writes:
The only reason there as been "no effect" is that the ToE is not subject to testing/replication like normal science is.
Here are 29+ tests for the Theory of Evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Will you now admit that you are wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 11:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 2:20 PM Taq has replied
 Message 764 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:25 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 753 of 1311 (814752)
07-12-2017 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Taq
07-12-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Funny -- not really
I don't read bare links. List the info on the board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 1:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 754 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 2:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 754 of 1311 (814755)
07-12-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by Faith
07-12-2017 2:20 PM


Re: Funny -- not really
Faith writes:
I don't read bare links. List the info on the board.
quote:
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
Evolution has passed that test with flying colors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 769 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 10:53 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 755 of 1311 (814763)
07-12-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by Dredge
07-11-2017 6:28 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Theorising is not a use!
Hypothesizing would be a better word.
And of course it is useful. For example, if the Theory of Evolution tells us that pigs and humans are related, we could hypothesize that pigs might be a useful source of insulin for diabetics. Would you care to test that hypothesis and get back to us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by Dredge, posted 07-11-2017 6:28 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 8:52 PM ringo has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 756 of 1311 (814777)
07-12-2017 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 711 by Taq
07-10-2017 5:29 PM


Re: define "species"
Taq writes:
Common descent is a conclusion, not a theory.
What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. This extrapolation was inspired by an hallucination induced by an overdose of peyote that Charles Darwin experienced while in South America. He then used the hallucination as the basis for his first science-fiction novel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 711 by Taq, posted 07-10-2017 5:29 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 781 by Taq, posted 07-13-2017 10:59 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 757 of 1311 (814778)
07-12-2017 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 743 by NoNukes
07-12-2017 12:03 AM


Re: define "species"
Dredge writes: The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, yet is it described as "evolution"
NoNukes writes:
In this you are just wrong. The peppered moth is one of the relatively small set of cases where both the specific mutation, and the date of its appearance are supported by scientific evidence. This particular detail has been the source of much discussion in these forums.
The truth is, white and black P. Moths have always existed in the same population. Their frequency changes depending on selection pressures. Everyone knows that ... or should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2017 12:03 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 8:58 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 774 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2017 3:49 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 777 by NoNukes, posted 07-13-2017 8:53 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 758 of 1311 (814779)
07-12-2017 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 755 by ringo
07-12-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Theorising is not a use!
ringo writes:
And of course it is useful. For example, if the Theory of Evolution tells us that pigs and humans are related, we could hypothesize that pigs might be a useful source of insulin for diabetics. Would you care to test that hypothesis and get back to us?
Remove ToE from human consciousness and pigs will still be a useful source of insulin for diabetics. Ditto for every other useful scientific discovery. In other words, the theory of common descent is an irrelevance to applied science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by ringo, posted 07-12-2017 3:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 788 by ringo, posted 07-13-2017 11:39 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 759 of 1311 (814781)
07-12-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Dredge
07-12-2017 8:46 PM


Re: define "species"
[citation required]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 8:46 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 760 of 1311 (814782)
07-12-2017 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 745 by Tangle
07-12-2017 2:52 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Tangle writes:
It is most probable that all life on earth has a single common ancestor but it isn't necessary for the ToE that that is true.
The most commonly cited other possibility is that there are two; one for bacteria and one for archaea and eukaryotes.
It makes no difference at all to the ToE which of those is true or if another version is true.
One, two or ten, the theory that all life on earth evolved from tiny, widdle primordial critters is a theory of common descent.
Dredge has spoken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by Tangle, posted 07-12-2017 2:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by Tangle, posted 07-13-2017 3:03 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 761 of 1311 (814784)
07-12-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 746 by Taq
07-12-2017 10:50 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful.
Taq writes:
Since the entire purpose of science is to explain observations, it kind of goes without saying.
One is forced to conclude that a lot of scientific explanations are completely useless and are an irrelevance to applied science. The theory of Black Holes is useless, for example; likewise the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor (the theory of common descent).
Are you saying that this explanation is not true because it is not "useful" in your estimation?
Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 746 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 10:50 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2017 11:39 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 782 by Taq, posted 07-13-2017 11:00 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 762 of 1311 (814787)
07-12-2017 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 748 by Coyote
07-12-2017 10:55 AM


Re: Funny
Coyote writes:
Creationists have been nipping at the heels of the Theory of Evolution for 150 years, all to no effect.
But the gyrations they go through and the "silver bullets" that are going to slay evolution (but never do) are sometimes pretty funny.
Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2017 10:55 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-12-2017 9:23 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 768 by CRR, posted 07-12-2017 10:43 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 771 by Coyote, posted 07-12-2017 11:41 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 787 by dwise1, posted 07-13-2017 11:31 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 763 of 1311 (814788)
07-12-2017 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by Dredge
07-12-2017 9:20 PM


Re: Funny
Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.
So what?
Acceptance of creationism is directly related to ignorance.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:20 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:43 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 764 of 1311 (814789)
07-12-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 752 by Taq
07-12-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Funny -- not really
Taq writes:
Here are 29+ tests for the Theory of Evolution:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Talk Origins describes Universal Common Descent as a "hypothesis". So I was wrong to call it a "theory" - way too generous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 1:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by NoNukes, posted 07-12-2017 10:31 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 786 by Taq, posted 07-13-2017 11:09 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 765 of 1311 (814791)
07-12-2017 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by Tanypteryx
07-12-2017 9:23 PM


Re: Funny
Dredge writes: Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.
Tanypteryx writes:
So what?
Having rejected Creation, atheists have no chose but to accept some theory of evolution as a means of explaining the reality of life (as there are no other alternatives). This position requires no evidence at all - except the existence of life. Darwinism is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation for how this this evolution works.
The fact that any theory of evolution is utterley useless in any applied scientific sense is irrelevant to it's acceptance - because it's raison d'etre isn't scientific, but philosophical. For this reason, Darwinism can rightly be described as "atheist theology".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-12-2017 9:23 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 783 by Taq, posted 07-13-2017 11:02 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 790 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 12:19 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 791 by ringo, posted 07-13-2017 12:28 PM Dredge 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