|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Talk Origins describes Universal Common Descent as a "hypothesis". So I was wrong to call it a "theory" - way too generous.
Here are 29+ tests for the Theory of Evolution: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes: Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.
Tanypteryx writes:
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. So what?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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Science is overrated and subject to delusion.
Science is all about explaining how the universe works, and that is exactly what the theory of evolution does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
SIFTER = Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships. Universal common descent is a conclusion, not a theory.It is also of practical use, such as the SIFTER algorithm that can predict protein function: ... Nice try, but no cigar ... I will bet my bottom dollar that "Evolutionary" refers to principles of microevolution (that all creationists accept) and is not in any way dependent on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes:
That's true. Lasers were initially useless. But Darwinism has been useless for more than 150 years. In another 150 years it will still be useless. (Note: The hallmark of a false theory is uselessness.) Actually, within 150 years, the science of genetics will prove that evolution is impossible ... and useless. What is not useful now may be most useful in a few years. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
"Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living terrestrial, organisms are genealogically related." - Talk Origins. (emphasis mine). As you have now apparently discovered, common descent is not a theory. Progress of sorts. Anyhow, all these evolution words games is like debating the colour of the Tooth Fairy's hair.
I've been here a few years now and have noticed that the crazier creationists - the real fruitcakes - speak of themselves in this third party way. You need to keep a watch on yourself.
Thank you for your concern, but the team of psychiatrists who look after me assure me that I'm no madder than I was at my last check-up. How did you know my OIR (Official Insanity Rating) is RF (Real Fruitcake)? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
In the wild, 99.9999% of budgerigars are coloured green and yellow. But breeders have produced budgies in many different colours, including white, blue, green, yellow, grey, violet and Pied. The potential for these "new" colours always existed. I suspect that the same potential for different coloured Pepperd Moths always existed. And Chicko agrees with me. I see that Tangle has provided some additional information. I am curious as to what it would take for you to check your answer before posting. While I am aware of how selection works, I am also aware that mutations occur, and I wouldn't assume without checking that a relatively recent (the early 1800s it turns out) mutation was not involved.Your peer CRR at least has not made the same mistake. Everyone should know better than to speak repeatedly from ignorance, yet you do not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
... otherwise known as natural selection.
So we have a beneficial mutation plus natural selection leading to a change in phenotype in response to a change in the environment. A perfectly demonstrated example of the predicted components of one form of the evolutionary process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. Taq writes:
After weighing up the evidence you have come to the conclusion that universal common descent is a fact. But I disagree - it's not a fact, but an absurd extrapolation.
Can you please point to any post where I used any such extrapolation? You seem to be making stuff up. When you feel the need to attack the messenger because you don't like the message, it is a good sign that you can't refute the message. I think my hypotheis is worth serious consideration: "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." It explains everything. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Thank you for providing this example of you arriving at what you think is a scientific conclusion, but is in fact an absurd extrapolation.
The accumulation of mutations like the one that produced new coloration in moths is exactly the pathway that results in massive biological change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Talk Origins describes Universal Common Descent as a "hypothesis". So I was wrong to call it a "theory" - way too generous. Taq writes:
Not scientific ... rather, atheistic.
So you admit that Universal Common Descent is scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science. Taq writes:
What I'm going on about about is, scientific explanations can be wrong. I like science that produces a practical use, because then you know that the principles involved are more or less correct.
Then what are you going on about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes:
Except when science is abused as a front for atheistic philosophy, which is what ToE does.
Science does quite well for itself. It may make errors but it has mechanisms built in to correct those errors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Well, ToE is actually an invention of Satan; but it is transmitted to the world at large by atheists. Out of the Enlightenment came a tsunami of atheism. It's was only a matter of time before a pseudo-scientific creation story came along to make all these atheists feel "intellectually fulfilled". It's so obvious. Why can't you see it? So then, yet again, explain why you consider that idea to be "atheistic." Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes:
That's not a very nice thing to say. The cult you have willingly joined doesn't like dissenters who shine lights in their dark dungeons. You are childishly deluded if you think the purpose of ToE is to advance science.
Lately you're nothing more than a troll.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024