|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Faith writes: I don't read bare links. List the info on the board. quote: Evolution has passed that test with flying colors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
CRR writes: Researchers monitoring Culex pipiens mosquitoes overwintering in a cave in southern France (in an area where organophosphate insecticides are widely used) noted a decline in the overall frequency of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes relative to susceptible ones as the winter progressed, indicating a large fitness cost.Gazave, E., Chevillon, C., Lenormand, T., Marquine, M., Raymond, M., Dissecting the cost of insecticide resistance genes during the overwintering period of the mosquito Culex pipiens, Heredity 87:441—448, 2001 If you took a polar bear and plopped it down in the Sahara desert it probably wouldn't last but a few days before dying. Does that mean the polar bear is not well adapted to its native environment? Is there a large fitness cost for adapting to the cold?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Faith writes: Design by an omniscient Designer explains it all just fine. How so? Why would a designer create life so that molecular phylogenies correlate to phylogenies based on physical characteristics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. Can you please point to any post where I used any such extrapolation? You seem to be making stuff up.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: One is forced to conclude that a lot of scientific explanations are completely useless and are an irrelevance to applied science. That has nothing to do with whether they are true.
Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science. Then what are you going on about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge 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). Atheists are free to take the "I don't know" position.
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. Science is all about explaining how the universe works, and that is exactly what the theory of evolution does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: First, changing colors is hardly a pathway leading to the kinds of massive biological change evolution requires. That is as wrong as saying that putting one foot in front of the other is hardly a pathway leading to walking a mile. The accumulation of mutations like the one that produced new coloration in moths is exactly the pathway that results in massive biological change.
Second, research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be junk DNA in the past. So we have a mutation in a region that previously didn't have function, but due to the mutation it now has function. How is this a problem for evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: Talk Origins describes Universal Common Descent as a "hypothesis". So I was wrong to call it a "theory" - way too generous. So you admit that Universal Common Descent is scientific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: ... otherwise known as natural selection. Otherwise known as a combination of random mutation and natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024