Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 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.
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

  
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

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


Message 779 of 1311 (814856)
07-13-2017 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by CRR
07-12-2017 10:40 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by CRR, posted 07-12-2017 10:40 PM CRR has not replied

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


Message 780 of 1311 (814857)
07-13-2017 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 769 by Faith
07-12-2017 10:53 PM


Re: Funny -- not really
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 769 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 10:53 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 781 of 1311 (814858)
07-13-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 756 by Dredge
07-12-2017 8:36 PM


Re: define "species"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 8:36 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 812 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:44 PM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 782 of 1311 (814859)
07-13-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 761 by Dredge
07-12-2017 9:10 PM


Re: Interesting question...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:10 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 816 by Dredge, posted 07-14-2017 12:07 AM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 783 of 1311 (814860)
07-13-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 765 by Dredge
07-12-2017 9:43 PM


Re: Funny
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:43 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 9:47 PM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 785 of 1311 (814862)
07-13-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 775 by CRR
07-13-2017 7:15 AM


Re: Peppered Moth
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 775 by CRR, posted 07-13-2017 7:15 AM CRR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 813 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:58 PM Taq has replied

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


Message 786 of 1311 (814863)
07-13-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 764 by Dredge
07-12-2017 9:25 PM


Re: Funny -- not really
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:25 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 814 by Dredge, posted 07-14-2017 12:01 AM Taq has not replied

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


Message 827 of 1311 (814994)
07-14-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 813 by Dredge
07-13-2017 11:58 PM


Re: Peppered Moth
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 813 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:58 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2017 7:30 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 828 of 1311 (814995)
07-14-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 812 by Dredge
07-13-2017 11:44 PM


Re: define "species"
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:44 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 829 of 1311 (814996)
07-14-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 801 by Dredge
07-13-2017 10:01 PM


Re: Interesting question...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 10:01 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 830 of 1311 (814997)
07-14-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 800 by Dredge
07-13-2017 9:47 PM


Re: Funny
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 9:47 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 831 of 1311 (814998)
07-14-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 810 by Dredge
07-13-2017 11:32 PM


Re: Peppered Moth
Dredge writes:
... otherwise known as natural selection.
Otherwise known as a combination of random mutation and natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 810 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:32 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 832 of 1311 (815000)
07-14-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 804 by Dredge
07-13-2017 10:16 PM


Re: Interesting question...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 10:16 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