|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
he potential for these "new" colours always existed. Yes, there have been loci to which a mutation once applied, black moths result.The problem with your assumption is that is known exactly what mutation produced these moths. Saying "potential" is just a placeholder for you telling us that you haven't really got a counter explanation. 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 |
Dredge 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. You haven't shown that there is any extrapolation or anything absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. They are all small changes. All of the differences between the genomes of species are small changes like that found in the peppered moth.
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. Extrapolation from what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes:
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.
Then bet that dollar and demonstrate that it is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: Science is overrated and subject to delusion. I see that you can't offer anything but insults, which is a sure sign that the evidence is not on your side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: ... otherwise known as natural selection. Otherwise known as a combination of random mutation and natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: That's true. Lasers were initially useless. But Darwinism has been useless for more than 150 years. I already demonstrated to you that the theory of evolution is useful, so at this point you are just lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
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". While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I wonder how many on that roster would be considered "true Christians" by YOU. You're famous for citing the accomplishments of Christians while conveniently forgetting that they were RC, CoE, etc. whom YOU don't consider real Christians.
The roster of truly great people who became believers after a long time of typical worldly indoctrination proves you wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Thanks for your honesty. Since you admit to being anti-science, I presume you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.
Science is overrated and subject to delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
In the same way, the potential for War and Peace exists in the Bible - all of the letters are there. All you need to do is rearrange them. So there's only "micro" difference between them?
The potential for these "new" colours always existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
caffeine writes: While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. It is arbitrary in the sense that most scientists view 95% confidence as a gold standard. However, it is objective in the sense that with p <= 0.05 there is a 5% chance that a single species would be mistaken for being two species.
I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. At one level or another, I suspect that the definition of species will be arbitrary since it is a continuum instead of a discontinuity. It is a bit like defining young and old, or short and tall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Thank you for confirming what I've been suspecting, that you have no clue and don't know what you are talking about. You have never given any of this any thought, but rather you just regurgitate the bullshit lies that your handlers have been spoon-feeding you. You cannot respond to any questions about what you say because you are simply incapable; you don't know what you are talking about.
I've seen that so many times since I started discussing "creation science" online in the late 1980's. The easiest way to anger a creationist would be to try to discuss his claims with him. It took me a while to figure out that it was because they didn't understand their own claims. They were just repeating something that they had heard, that sounded convincing to them even though they didn't understand it, and that they therefore could not possibly discuss. So they'd try to change the subject, come back with bullshit hyperbole, and act just like you're acting. I'll bet you don't even understand what "atheistic" means. I've seen it used in so many ways by creationists, even to the point of labeling the vast majority of theists and even the majority of Christians as "atheists". At the extreme pole of the spectrum, I've seen it used to describe all other positions that do not agree fully with the creationist's own particular extremely narrow theology, such that even many creationists would be considered "atheists". So why don't you explain what you mean by it? You refuse to, I think because you cannot, because you yourself don't understand what you mean by it. You seem to just use it to disparage anything or anybody that disagrees with you in the slightest bit. Like everything else, you haven't given it any thought. Think about this question and try something new, give an honest answer: What would be the consequences of evolution being true? Also, again that question that you avoided: When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them? We both know full well that religion does not correct those errors, but rather promotes them to Gospel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The forum's search function shows that you've been blathering on for a rather long time about "applied science". Yet again, you display your ignorance of science and about reality.
Dredge writes: Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science. Taq writes: Then what are you going on about? 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. So if science can result in a tangible product, then you are satisfied. If not, then you feel that you can freely ignore it. Your supposed distinction between pure and applied science is meaningless, though understandable. You think in terms of theology and Bible study. In theology and especially in Bible study you are free to cherry-pick to your little heart's desire. Cherry-picking is when you are free to pick and choose the data you want and to ignore what you don't want. You point to the passages that support your position and are quite free to ignore the ones that contradict it. That's the wonderful thing about the Bible, that you can support just about any position possible with it; eg, both pro- and anti-slavery factions used the same Bible to support their own positions, often with the very same passages. Science is not quite as obliging, which I guess is why you hate it so much. You cannot cherry-pick scientific evidence. Unlike in theology, it has to all work together. I think that that is your problem. You think that you can pick and choose the scientific findings that you like (eg, the ones supporting computers and flush toilets) and also ignore the ones you don't like. No, it does not work that way. It all has to work or else there is a big problem. I even presented an actual case in Message 772 which you chose to completely ignore. Einsteinian relativity is considered by most to be very abstract, pure science, not at all part of your special "applied science." GPS position solutions depend on very precise timing solutions of the satellite signals arriving at the GPS receiver. That timing depends directly on the relativistic effects of being in different places within a gravity well (for the past two decades, I have been working on systems incorporating GPS receivers, so I am familiar with this topic). The bottom line here is that applied science depends directly on pure science. So your supposed dichotomy between pure and applied science is pure bollocks. You can cherry-pick your religion until Judgement Day and get away with it, but you cannot cherry-pick science!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey? Indeed, some taxonomists are lumpers and some are splitters, and have actually argued about how many species are involved. What is more important is the genetic lineage of the various Titi monkeys and their evolution from a common ancestor population. And that it is different from the Capuchin monkeys. Names are just labels we humans use to communicate. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024