Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 18 of 188 (646113)
01-03-2012 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 8:08 AM


Fun with Strawmen!
Hi Mike,
The problem with evolution is that if you observe a snail in the Cambrian era, and a snail now, you will not see a logically equivalent change between the extinct organism and it's extant counterpart.
Well gee, it's a good job that the ToE doesn't make any such claim then.
No-one claimed that organisms must diverge from their ancestral population at the same rate, or anything even close to it. That's just a crazy strawman based on your deep ignorance of the topic.
So the snail has basically became, ultimately, a snail, according to the law of identity.
Er, mike... The offspring of the snail are not the same object as the original snail. the law of identity doesn't apply here. Obviously.
While I agree that change happens, it does not follow logically that evolution is a necessity, only that change is a necessity.
Hey look! You got something right! You should probably print that out and have it framed.
For example, a star-fish can re-grow it's limbs. This has nothing to do with evolution.
Hey that's right as well! Wow Mike, you're starting to scare me.
Of course, your achievement is somewhat undermined by the fact that this has so little to do with evolution that one is left wondering what the heck made you see fit to bring it up at all. The modern ToE doesn't claim that acquired characteristics of the kind that you describe have anything to do with evolution. That would be Lammarckism, which has been discredited for over a century. Do try to keep up with the state of the art, at least to within a hundred years or so.
There is a massive induction of organisms that have not "changed" in an evolutionary way,
Oh dear, you're back to being wrong again. I knew it couldn't last.
Are you identical to your parents Mike? No? Then you're wrong.
TIME, alone, does not prove this claim at all, logically speaking. What we should see is that if you eat and eat and eat, you become a kind of eating-species, with no legs or arms, and a stomache that takes up 95% of your body, with a strange new design of tongue that extends several metres to help you eat.
LOGICALLY, THAT would be evolution being proven.
That would be the ToE being disproved, since it is just another of those crazy strawmen you seem to like so much.
Have you ever wondered what it would be like to debate the real Theory of Evolution?
Nice to meet you, at least you didn't make the usual mistakes, such as a pompous tone, or an attacking ad hominem countenance.
Well I can't lay claim to that. The thing is that there is no polite way of telling you that you are completely clueless about evolution and that your arguments are gibberish. Since this is exactly your problem, it's hard not to come off as pompous.
Oh and speaking of pomposity...
I am tough on myself.
No you're not Mike. You are breathtakingly arrogant, even in the same breath as you utter grotesque and shameful ignorance. If referring to yourself as "the Irrefutable One" is being tough on yourself, I'd hate to see you when you're letting it all hang out.
I think you need to be a damn sight harder on yourself. It might motivate you to bloody learn something about evolution before sounding off on it. Nearly nine years you've been here and you still don't seem to have even the slightest grasp of the ToE and what it really says. That's ... well, it's not good, you know what I'm saying?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 8:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 9:30 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 9:39 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 23 of 188 (646137)
01-03-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 9:30 AM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
No, I understand normalized selection or evolutionary stasis, it is not that matter, it is the matter of logic, concerning a grand claim.
Yes, a claim that no evolutionary scientist has ever made. Nice work.
So the two are NOT essentially what they are? Snails?
The parent snail is not the same object as the offspring snail. The law of identity does not apply. This is very simple stuff, honestly.
The offspring of a snail is snails.
But not the same snails. Different snails. New ones, with evolutionary changes.
The POTENTIAL non sequitur is hidden within the claim, that "snails, over time, become NOT snails".
Cladistics doesn't work that way. You've just misunderstood it.
I was responding to the claim that evolution is required, rather than merely change. Incase you did not realize, you said that I was right about that.
Being right isn't enough; you should be aiming at being right and relevant. In waffling about non-evolutionary change in a discussion about evolution, you are just gibbering.
No - I am right, there is no evolutionary change between me and my parents. It is the law of identity again.
So you are actually the same object as your parents? What, both of them? If not, the law of identity does not apply and we get to add logic to the long list of things you know nothing about.
1. That evolution can have stasis.
2. Micro=macro.
1: Evolution can't have complete stasis, but it can and does display relative stasis.
2: Micro does equal macro. They are just the same thing viewed over different time-scales.
If micro=macro, then you should be able to observe and evolutionary change between a man that lived 500 years ago and me.
You can. We can observe such changes between you and your parents.
If my friend eats and eats, he becomes fat (evolution)
No. Please repeat biology 101.
If you can only say I am wrong, but can't show I am wrong, it is natural for you to make emotive epithet, question-begging statements.
I have shown that you are wrong. Repeatedly.
P.s. It's not that I don't understand evolution, it is that I understand it and yet don't believe it happened.
Then why do you constantly mischaracterise evolution? For shits and giggles? I mean, you make mistakes in the most elementary facts about evolutionary theory. You don't even seem to understand the difference between acquired and inherited change. That's awful mike, just awful.
Granny writes:
You are breathtakingly arrogant, even in the same breath as you utter grotesque and shameful ignorance.
Mike writes:
What has this got to do with anything at all, in my response to the new member?
Just a personal wake-up call for you Mike. If you will get almost everything you say wrong, on a debate board, you will get called on it. If you claim to be humble whilst eulogising yourself, you will get called. Get the beam out of your eye.
He has given me wisdom. I am His witness. He is the irrefutable one, not me, I am a vessel, a joke, a prized fool by which He delights in watching me defeat the best wisdom the world can provide.
A classic example of your personal delusions of grandeur. You aren't a prized fool. you're just a fool. just another anonymous internet nutball. You're not defeating "the best wisdom the world can provide", you're just ranting on a message board. Get a grip on yourself.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 9:30 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 26 of 188 (646179)
01-03-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:11 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
Scientists don't claim every organism on the planet stemmed from a common ancestry? Then I have nothing to say.
If only that were true. But anyway, that's not the claim you were talking about. You said;
Mike writes:
The problem with evolution is that if you observe a snail in the Cambrian era, and a snail now, you will not see a between the extinct organism and it's extant counterpart.
You said that as though it were somehow a coherent thought, instead of what it is, namely an incoherent blunder.
For the Nth time, the ToE does not require or even predict that all ancestral populations must show "logically equivalent change". That's just a bit of silliness that you made up.
Please argue against the real Theory of Evolution Mike. If you can't understand it well enough to do that, go crack a book or two until you do understand it. If you're not willing to do that, silence would be a good alternative.
The law of identity states that something is essentially what it is.
I am not saying the parent snail is the same object as the offspring snail.
Then you are misapplying the Law. The parent snail is not identical to the offspring. It may still be called a snail, but if you consider that to be an important difference, then you are confusing the name of a thing with the actual thing itself.
The Law of Identity does not apply here precisely because the organisms concerned are changing.
I am saying that the parent and the offspring, according to the law of identity, both represent everything of their kind, and are not anything else.
A meaningless statement. They are only what they are. What we choose to label them as is irrelevant.
A claim was made that you need evolution.
By Scooch perhaps, but no scientist would make such a claim. indeed, it has got no traction here. To address it as if it were common evolutionary dogma is redundant.
Superficial adaptations in kinds of creature, do not support evolution, they falsify it.
And the example you gave, of a starfish regrowing a limb, was absurdly unrelated to the discussion.
My point is that the snail in the Cambrian and the extant counterpart encompass not macro evolution.
Well, in that you are wrong of course, but you are also wrong to suppose that they must exhibit large-scale change. They need not. The ToE never predicts that. Static environments can lead to relatively static species.
It is factual that the snail in the Cambrian and it's extant counterpart are essentially the same kind of creature, according to the law of identity, otherwise you are saying that even though they look close to exactly the same, they have changed to the degree of difference between that of a grass blade and a rabbit.
Again, this is another fine example of something that the ToE does not state.
Again, I know the PROPOSED stories of evolution, that one species might divert into another creature, but I am looking at reality and facts, not what is proposed to have happened, in an evolutionary-proposed history.
Or, to put this another way, you don't care what the actual ToE says, you prefer to argue against ludicrous strawmen of your own creation. then you gloat a bit. Sad.
If that is true then you can find a thousand year old human and show me the changes over time. Or HIV, which replicates thousands of times faster.
Is it really necessary to show you that all humans have different DNA fingerprints? If you genuinely doubt that then it's forensic science you should be railing against, not evolution.
We see kinds basically saying the same, even the Cambrian has most of the major phyla, this is not what you would expect given macro-evolution, you would not expect a massive induction of organisms, that over time, have basically stayed the same.
Again, if you think that "kinds" have stayed basically the same since the friggin' Cambrian, you out of your mind.
This is the Cambrian version of "Chordate Kind" (i.e. you and me and all fish, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds and others);
According to you, this "basically stayed the same". Can you begin to understand why I accuse you of talking nonsense?
Granny writes:
You don't even seem to understand the difference between acquired and inherited change. That's awful mike, just awful.
Mike writes:
Of course I do, acquired would be convergent evolution, as an example.
No it wouldn't. Not even close.
Understanding it won't mean it happened.
No, but until you do understand it, your undereducated ravings won't mean diddly squat.
It comforts you if you can label me as a nut-case.
Consider it done.
Granny writes:
Mutate and Survive
No thanks. I do fine as a specialized creation, I have the greatest gifts possible, and the best future ever. He shows those who love Him, by His spirit He has revealed it to me. If I am God's mad fool, then I am wiser than man.
I have said I could be quite wrong. You have insulted me and sinned against me. Your own words show that there is no truth in you or you would not have done these things.
I love it when you guys take a pop at my sig. It always seems to bring out the real vintage crazy. This latest screed is no exception, consisting as it does of crazy ramblings, arrogant and self-aggrandising waffle, an insinuated proxy threat and an Ad Hom for good measure. Truly, kudos to you Mike, it's a real classic of internet fundamentalist insanity.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 29 of 188 (646191)
01-03-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:24 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
No - it isn't. It's the notation of logic, that a grand general claim must have correspondingly huge evidence.
I agree. But since the claim you made is not one that evolutionary science makes, it is not one that evolutionary science must answer. Since it's a claim that you made up, it can be dismissed.
Argue the real theory Mikey. Strawmen just waste our time.
It is not a blunder to say that snails still exist, as well as a coelecanthe, etc.....The list is endless, of organisms that exist now, that were thought to have evolved into other organisms.
No. Just because some of their ancestors evolved into other organisms, it doesn't follow that every lineage must evolve into a radically different organism or that all descendent organisms must show morphological change at similar rates. You just made that up.
You still think I am confused about lineages. I am not. I know a snail can branch off into an evolution of something else. You can say that all of these creatures in the Cambrian branched off, but that doesn't mean they did.
No, but if you want to refute the arguments of evolution, that is the argument that you must refute. Not some silly strawman that you made up. You see how it works? To argue against evolution, you mus address what biologists actually say, not what you wish they would say.
Sure, you can propose lineages and cladograms, but the actual facts show that all of the phyla arrived, or most of it, right there, out of nowhere, and that there is an induction of evidence supporting same basic organisms.
Really? Can you show me the nearest thing the Cambrian has to a rabbit? (Hint: I already showed it to you.)
I am saying that everything that makes a snail a snail is there, no more no less, as with the previous ancestor.
And you would be wrong. Snails undergo random mutation too.
You say that we came from them. Remember, I don't really believe in evolutionary time-spans.
Nonetheless, that is the argument that you must address if you wish to discuss the ToE. If you will not address that argument, you are not arguing against the real ToE, you are beating up a strawman.
Convergent evolution is an example of a none-inherited evolution because there is no relation between the species. So it is an example of how you don't have to inherit a similar morphology, it can come from necessity.
Insofar as the above resembles a sentence in the English language, it is wrong. You are confusing acquired change with convergent evolution. As any fule kno, they are radically different concepts.
Even if I don't understand evolution to the fanatical degree you do, you are under the delusion that understanding the hypothetics of evolution means it happened.
No, I was operating under the delusion that those who claim to have refuted the ToE might first understand what it states. I can now see that I was hopelessly deluded.
It looks like your argument is that because I don't agree with you I am insane.
That is called a non sequitur, which is something that does not follow.
No, attacking me for an argument I did not make is called a strawman. You ought to know by now.
Look Mike, if you want to argue with a strawman, go and make one in your garden and have a nice little chat with him. Just don't beat up straw men and then claim that you've refuted the ToE. You haven't. You haven't even touched it.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:24 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 31 of 188 (646201)
01-03-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:03 PM


Re: Fun with Strawmen!
There are no strawmans. It is an observation. The general claim of evolution is that every single organism on this planet stemmed from an original common ancestor.
That is a claim biologists make, yes. But that is not the claim you made;
Mike writes:
The problem with evolution is that if you observe a snail in the Cambrian era, and a snail now, you will not see a logically equivalent change between the extinct organism and it's extant counterpart.
You clearly claimed that the lack of "logically equivalent change" (a nonsense term that you made up) posed a problem for the ToE, as that were what the ToE predicts. It does not. That is your false claim.
Fact is logic itself requires, that to prove the ToE, you have to show that the mechanisms have the power to evolve into new creatures.
Random mutation and natural selection seem like rather a good start.
It is irrelevant that organisms don't need to change, necessarily, the point it a logical one, that the claim is that all of these changes came about BECAUSE of evolution. To show this is an absolutely miniscule way would be to show one novel morphology in the lab. That is not the case.
Yes it is. The evolution of citrate metabolism in e-Coli demonstrates this.
The actual facts, if you ignore evolutionary dogma, about the fossil record being a record of life evolving rather than being a grave, shows that the Cambrian contains snails. There are, in many different eras, morphologies that are identical to todays, such as pollen and feathers.
No. There were no feathers or pollen in the Cambrian.
Show me the Cambrian organism that has "basically stayed the same" as a rabbit. Or a blue-footed booby. Or a whale shark. Or a spider mite, or an oak tree or a gecko, or a stinkhorn...
Stasis my ass. Ooh! There's a good one! Show me a Cambrian ass!
The burden of proof is not on me to exactly state the hypothetics of evolution. I have an understanding of evolution, enough of an understanding, but logically that has nothing to do with the problem in hand.
What really?! You don't think that your comprehension of a topic is relevant to your ability to discuss it coherently?
Wow.
It states that every organism was a result of changes caused by an evolution, a potential non-sequitur.
Oh look, you're still wrong. An evolution? WTF?
We know of many lineages that turned out to not be accepted.
Accepted?
A mad, retarded, deformed frog-man, out of his mind, completely gone, can still state something true.
Then I can only suggest that you find one and ask him to teach you about evolution. He would doubtless do a better job.
Goodbye
Knowing your usual MO, this is the prelude to another twenty or so messages telling us how you won't be posting any more messages.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:03 PM mike the wiz 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