|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Minnemooseus writes:
Dredge's fragile, egg-shell mind is beginning to over-heat.
I would say that the conclusion becomes part of the theory, the theory of (biological) evolution being the entire collected knowledge of how life came to be as it is. The conclusion is theory, and many smaller theories come together to become a larger theory. The full theory of (biological) evolution is (dare I say) huge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. ... Not quite.
The hypothesis is developed to explain evidence that is known, and then make a prediction for something that is not known that would be then be investigated to test the hypothesis. An hypothesis an untested theory, it is only through testing the hypothesis that it becomes theory ... when it passes the test and is not invalidated.
... So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". ... Curiously, when I search for hypothesis of common descent I get the theory of common descent:
Wikipedia: "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. ... " Common descent -- different species having descended from a common ancestor population -- is a direct outcome of the theory of evolution, so this evidence tested both the theory of evolution and the theory of common descent ... and did not invalidate them. When there are "mountains of evidence" that has tested a theory, then it is considered a "strong theory" ... like the theory of gravity ... and the theory of evolution.
... All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused. Yes you are. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Both University of Michigan and University of Berkley list Abiogenesis and Universal Common Ancestry as foundational assumptions of the Theory of Evolution. [citation required] And his other five "assumptions"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Follow the links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
OK.
None of those links and quotes say that abiogenesis or single ancestor are assumptions of the theory of evolution. The word "assumption" or any near synonym (premise, foundation, ...) does not appear except in your comment. Fail. This seems apropos to your feeble response:
I see you have no response to my critique of his other five "assumptions". Pathetic. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Wow, that sounds like it is speaking to you. You won't put op with the sound doctrine of evolution and instead, to suit your own desires, you turn towards the myth of creationism. Tsk tsk.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
CRR writes: I did. Nothing in there contradicts evolutionary theory.
Follow the links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
dwise1 writes:
I reiterate ... this is way off topic. If you disagree and claim that religion does have means to detect and deal with errors, then please present them. IOW, answer the damned question! Stop being so dishonest! I disagree. It does have a bearing, because you accuse science of the same things. The simple fact is that science is far more capable of detecting and dealing with errors and scientists are strongly motivated to seek out and correct or eliminate errors. Yet you accuse science of the complete opposite, of the very incapabilities and motivations displayed by religion. It also demonstrates your dishonesty, such that nobody can take at face value anything you say, including what you say about science. Of course you could offer some support for your bald assertions, but you refuse to do so. You have nothing to support your bald assertions and you know it. Therefore you concede defeat and must agree that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
He was specifically offering those links as proof that the first two of Kerkut's seven "assumptions:
quote: are indeed assumptions of the ToE. They don't support that cliam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
CRR writes: While Kerkut says "spontaneous generation occurred only once" others such as Dobzhansky say that "It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth" Both result in Universal Common Ancestry. So as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.
If there were one or multiple simple original life forms that were created by a deity, and those simple life forms produced the biodiversity we see over billions of years, what would we need to change in the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: A trivial sermantic misunderstanding like this is hardly going to alter my views about evolution. As already shown, no amount of evidence or facts will change your views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please? If you can't understand that explanation, then you have no place calling evolution a religion, or claiming that it is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2270 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
So at Message 918 you said
JonF writes: [Kerkut] lists seven "assumptions", the first two of which are not premises of the ToE and the rest of which are conclusions from masses of evidence.
quote: My reply at Message 931 addressed ONLY (1) and (2) which you said were not premises of the ToEAssumption (1) is ABIOGENESIS and assumption (2) results in UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY. From University of Michigan we get;"Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas. All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor." UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY Following the link on that page to lecture on speciation we find"Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms." ABIOGENESIS From Berkley we get;Universal Common Ancestry, Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Unicellular life evolves. So according to Berkley and Michigan all life evolved from a common microbial ancestor that arose naturally from non-living matter. From Dobzhansky "They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) " ABIOGENESIS and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY From Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution is True, 2009"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009] ABIOGENESIS (perhaps a self replicating molecule) and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY This is what Universities teach. This is what evolutionists Kerkut, Dobzhansky, and Coyne say. The precise wording changes with the different sources but the intent is clear.So these are indeed assumptions of the ToE and as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
Huh? I've learnt that I'd never in my life been called "dishonest ... a liar ... deceitful ...misleading ... disingenuous ... a hypocrite" until I started debating Darwinism cultists online. Well then maybe you should stop debating Darwinism cultists online if you can't do it with integrity. And nice try at projection, outlining your blatant intellectual dishonesty, as if you're unaware and enslaved by a creationist cult. Even though we may respect Darwin's work, no one is worshiping him. Darwin would have been blown away with what we now know about modern evolutionary syntheses. Edited by Porosity, : No reason given. Edited by Porosity, : No reason given. Edited by Porosity, : Doh!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
It comes as no surprise all that you can't give me an example.
Dredge writes:
If you can't understand that explanation, then you have no place calling evolution a religion, or claiming that it is false.
Can you give me a Dredge-simple example, please?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024