Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2017 2:44 PM
383 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,244 Year: 18,850/21,208 Month: 1,609/3,111 Week: 404/707 Day: 100/78 Hour: 3/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5152
53
5455
...
64NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 781 of 957 (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 responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 782 of 957 (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 responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 783 of 957 (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 responded

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

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 784 of 957 (814861)
07-13-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by CRR
07-12-2017 10:40 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Thanks for the references. I will try and find them.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


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

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 785 of 957 (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 yet responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6785
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 786 of 957 (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 responded

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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 787 of 957 (814864)
07-13-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 762 by Dredge
07-12-2017 9:20 PM


Re: Funny
Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.

Uh, no. Please support that ridiculous statement.

There is nothing about evolution that contradicts the idea of Divine Creation. If you believe that there is, then do please tell us why you believe that and try to make a case for it.

There are false and contrary-to-fact claims that creationists will make which do conflict with reality and hence with science. In that case, the problem lies with the false creationist theologies and not with science. To correct that problem, you need to correct the false theology, not reject the science.

The only way that accepting evolution can cause atheism is if that person's religion had falsely taught him that if evolution is true then the only response is to become an atheist. I have seen far too many creationists spout that particular false teaching to me and insist upon it very adamantly.

The fact of evolution is indeed true, so people remaining true to their religion's false teachings will become atheists. Not because of evolution, but rather because of their religion. What I cannot understand is why, upon discovering that their religion had lied to them about evolution, they don't also realize that their religion had also lied to them about having to become atheists if evolution turns out to be true.

Edited by dwise1, : "reject", not "ignore"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:20 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13313
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 788 of 957 (814865)
07-13-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 758 by Dredge
07-12-2017 8:52 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:

Remove ToE from human consciousness and pigs will still be a useful source of insulin for diabetics.


But how would you know? If you didn't think there was any biological relationship between humand and pigs, how would you make the connection?

Hint: Creationists didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 8:52 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13313
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 789 of 957 (814866)
07-13-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 768 by CRR
07-12-2017 10:43 PM


Re: Funny
CRR writes:

Creation is the theory that fits the facts.
Evolution is the theory the facts don't fit.


Creation is not a theory. It doesn't explain anything. All it does is claim that a giant invisible question mark created everything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by CRR, posted 07-12-2017 10:43 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 790 of 957 (814869)
07-13-2017 12:19 PM
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).

Interesting that you fantasize about my history. Actually, I was exposed to the Theory of Evolution during the summer when I was 13. I remember because it was the first year that I worked for my grandfather on his ranch. I always read a lot of books during the summer and one that year was a large book on the history of life. It was absolutely fascinating and by the end of the summer, I was convinced that religion was as childish as belief in Santa Claus. What convinced me was the evidence, a whole book full of it (and this was before molecular biology). I already knew I wanted to be a scientist studying insects and that book gave me the basis to understand why there are so many species and how they came to be unique.

Dredge writes:

Darwinism is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation for how this this evolution works.

150 years ago Darwin gave us a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. He organized his explanation so well that it became the scaffold for the systematic study of all of biology. We have really learned a lot in the last 150 years and all the observations confirm that life has evolved and is evolving. Curiously, none of the evidence indicates that creationism is anything but childish fantasy.

Dredge writes:

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.

Well, it's too bad that you don't know anything about science, but your envy of those of us that do makes your ignorance all the sadder.

Dredge writes:

Darwinism can rightly be described as "atheist theology".

It sure seems to piss you off that millions of scientists and millions more of smart people accept and use the Theory of Evolution and completely ignore what you creationists think.

The funny part is that you worst insult you can come up with is "atheist theology". It is clear that even though you won't admit it, you know that religion is childish drivel that no adult would still believe in.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:43 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by dwise1, posted 07-13-2017 2:47 PM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 07-13-2017 4:38 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13313
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 791 of 957 (814870)
07-13-2017 12:28 PM
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).


You have it backwards.

I grew up in a very religious background. I was practically born in church. I could quote large swaths of the Bible literally before I could read. But as a teenager I tried to prove that the flood story was true and I discovered that it's impossible. The flood could not have happened.

I have been sliding toward atheism (I won't admit to being there yet) BECAUSE of the lame attempts by religionists to prove the lie of creation.

But you are right about there being no alternative to evolution. Creation isn't even a close second.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 765 by Dredge, posted 07-12-2017 9:43 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 792 of 957 (814891)
07-13-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Tanypteryx
07-13-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Funny
It is clear that even though you won't admit it, you know that religion is childish drivel that no adult would still believe in.

Actually, religion is much more than that. Not that you could tell from the nonsense we keep encountering from creationists and "true Christians."

I am an atheist and have been one for more than half a century. Furthermore, everything I've seen of Christians (again, mainly creationists and "true Christians") informs me against Christianity and confirms that I made the right decision to leave it over 50 years ago.

But the way that creationists and "true Christians" misuse and abuse religion does not mean that religion is worthless. As hugely successful science is at answering questions about the real world, it can only work for a small subset of questions, namely questions about how the real world works.

Unfortunately, that does not include most of the really interesting and important questions, such as what our minister (UU) called the fundamental religious question, "How then are we to live our lives?" Science cannot even begin to address those questions, but at most can only offer factual information in connection to those questions. Only religion and philosophy can dare to try to tackle those questions. Unfortunately, because of way in which the very nature of the questions shape the methods of religion and philosophy, those methods are far less reliable than the methods of science, which makes their answers far less reliable. But they're the only game in town for those kinds of questions, so what are you going to do?

As I recently discussed, one of the most useful products of science are the further questions that it raises. In the process of answering one scientific question, you discover something which raise more questions that serve to direct further research. An answer which does not generate more questions or even serves to stifle further questions (eg, inserting "goddidit" into science) is of very little use and can even be harmful to science.

Similarly, the answers produced by religion are not very useful and can even be detrimental. Rather, what makes religion useful are the questions. Religion needs to get us to ask the right questions. We may never be able to find the answers to those questions, nor should we expect to be able to, but the important thing is that we ask those questions and we think about them and try to find the answers. The really important questions will then generate yet more questions.

"To question is the answer" is a buzz phrase associated with Unitarian-Universalism (UU). I understand it to have originated from the civil rights and anti-war efforts of the 1960's, when it referred to questioning authority. There's even a joke: How do you know that Unitarian night riders had visited you in the night? You wake up to find a burning question mark in your front yard. I also saw a Super-Unitarian emblem, the Superman emblem with a question mark instead of an "S". But that phrase also works on a religious level, where it refers to the essential purpose of religion to get us to ask questions, the right questions.

So religion is only "childish drivel that no adult would still believe in" when it's not used right, when it only dictates arbitrary answers that you are forbidden to question. When religion is used right, it gets you asking the right questions, which can be very useful. When used right, even Christianity can contribute to one's spiritual growth, incredible as that may sound.


"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
(Andre Gide)

"{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy."
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

"God is not what you imagine, or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."
(Augustine of Hippo)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 12:19 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 5:17 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 847 by Dredge, posted 07-15-2017 7:13 PM dwise1 has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25580
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 793 of 957 (814909)
07-13-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by Tanypteryx
07-13-2017 12:19 PM


Re: Funny
It is clear that even though you won't admit it, you know that religion is childish drivel that no adult would still believe in.

The roster of truly great people who became believers after a long time of typical worldly indoctrination proves you wrong. The latest I happen to have read about is Rosaria Butterfield who was a professor of English with a Marxist lesbian twist when she was persuaded to the truth of the Bible. C.S. Lewis was a professor of literature too when God reached down and snapped him up as well. Those two stand out in recent time for me but if I go back before Darwin there's a long list of them. There are plenty of non-greats who went through the same experience I'm sure: I was just as indoctrinated in evolution and the old earth when I became a believer in my late forties.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 12:19 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 794 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 4:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 834 by ringo, posted 07-14-2017 12:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1514
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 794 of 957 (814915)
07-13-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by Faith
07-13-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Funny
The roster of truly great people who became believers after a long time of typical worldly indoctrination proves you wrong.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything other than well known people can become just as deluded as people none of us have heard of.

I was just as indoctrinated in evolution and the old earth when I became a believer in my late forties.

Well, whoever indoctrinated you didn't know what they were talking about, judging from your poor grasp of evolution and geology. All you demonstrate is that you are easily indoctrinated.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 07-13-2017 4:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 795 by Faith, posted 07-13-2017 4:54 PM Tanypteryx has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25580
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 795 of 957 (814917)
07-13-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by Tanypteryx
07-13-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Funny
If I was easily indoctrinated it would have happened long before my late forties, and nobody persuaded me by the way, I got interested in the subject and read books over a period of years until I was finally persuaded. Butterfield may not really be a "great" but she was no pushover. Took a number of years during which she thought she was learning the Bible in order to debunk fundamentalism before she too saw the light. C.S. Lewis was a lot smarter than the likes of you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 4:51 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-13-2017 4:59 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5152
53
5455
...
64NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017