Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 3:29 PM
364 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,356 Year: 23,962/21,208 Month: 1,927/2,468 Week: 20/416 Day: 20/24 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
5758
...
88NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 826 of 1311 (814975)
07-14-2017 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 809 by Dredge
07-13-2017 11:29 PM


Re: define "species"
he potential for these "new" colours always existed.

Yes, there have been loci to which a mutation once applied, black moths result.
The problem with your assumption is that is known exactly what mutation produced these moths.

Saying "potential" is just a placeholder for you telling us that you haven't really got a counter explanation.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:29 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 responded

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


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 yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1346
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 833 of 1311 (815001)
07-14-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 725 by Taq
07-11-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Species
That's where statistics comes in. If there is a statistically significant difference in allele distributions between two defined populations then you can objectively define "evolving separately".

While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Taq, posted 07-11-2017 12:00 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by Taq, posted 07-14-2017 12:20 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 840 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:14 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 834 of 1311 (815004)
07-14-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by Faith
07-13-2017 4:38 PM


Re: Funny
Faith writes:

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


I wonder how many on that roster would be considered "true Christians" by YOU. You're famous for citing the accomplishments of Christians while conveniently forgetting that they were RC, CoE, etc. whom YOU don't consider real Christians.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by Faith, posted 07-13-2017 4:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 835 of 1311 (815005)
07-14-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Dredge
07-13-2017 9:47 PM


Re: Funny
Dredge writes:

Science is overrated and subject to delusion.


Thanks for your honesty. Since you admit to being anti-science, I presume you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 9:47 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13644
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 836 of 1311 (815006)
07-14-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by Dredge
07-13-2017 11:29 PM


Re: define "species"
Dredge writes:

The potential for these "new" colours always existed.


In the same way, the potential for War and Peace exists in the Bible - all of the letters are there. All you need to do is rearrange them. So there's only "micro" difference between them?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by Dredge, posted 07-13-2017 11:29 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 837 of 1311 (815008)
07-14-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by caffeine
07-14-2017 11:25 AM


Re: Species
caffeine writes:

While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance.

It is arbitrary in the sense that most scientists view 95% confidence as a gold standard. However, it is objective in the sense that with p <= 0.05 there is a 5% chance that a single species would be mistaken for being two species.

I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one.

At one level or another, I suspect that the definition of species will be arbitrary since it is a continuum instead of a discontinuity. It is a bit like defining young and old, or short and tall.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by caffeine, posted 07-14-2017 11:25 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 838 of 1311 (815023)
07-14-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by Dredge
07-14-2017 12:38 AM


Re: Funny -- not really
Thank you for confirming what I've been suspecting, that you have no clue and don't know what you are talking about. You have never given any of this any thought, but rather you just regurgitate the bullshit lies that your handlers have been spoon-feeding you. You cannot respond to any questions about what you say because you are simply incapable; you don't know what you are talking about.

I've seen that so many times since I started discussing "creation science" online in the late 1980's. The easiest way to anger a creationist would be to try to discuss his claims with him. It took me a while to figure out that it was because they didn't understand their own claims. They were just repeating something that they had heard, that sounded convincing to them even though they didn't understand it, and that they therefore could not possibly discuss. So they'd try to change the subject, come back with bullshit hyperbole, and act just like you're acting.

I'll bet you don't even understand what "atheistic" means. I've seen it used in so many ways by creationists, even to the point of labeling the vast majority of theists and even the majority of Christians as "atheists". At the extreme pole of the spectrum, I've seen it used to describe all other positions that do not agree fully with the creationist's own particular extremely narrow theology, such that even many creationists would be considered "atheists".

So why don't you explain what you mean by it? You refuse to, I think because you cannot, because you yourself don't understand what you mean by it. You seem to just use it to disparage anything or anybody that disagrees with you in the slightest bit. Like everything else, you haven't given it any thought.

Think about this question and try something new, give an honest answer: What would be the consequences of evolution being true?

Also, again that question that you avoided: When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them?

We both know full well that religion does not correct those errors, but rather promotes them to Gospel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by Dredge, posted 07-14-2017 12:38 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 839 of 1311 (815054)
07-15-2017 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 816 by Dredge
07-14-2017 12:07 AM


Re: Interesting question...
The forum's search function shows that you've been blathering on for a rather long time about "applied science". Yet again, you display your ignorance of science and about reality.

Dredge writes:
Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science.
Taq writes:

Then what are you going on about?

What I'm going on about about is, scientific explanations can be wrong. I like science that produces a practical use, because then you know that the principles involved are more or less correct.

So if science can result in a tangible product, then you are satisfied. If not, then you feel that you can freely ignore it.

Your supposed distinction between pure and applied science is meaningless, though understandable. You think in terms of theology and Bible study. In theology and especially in Bible study you are free to cherry-pick to your little heart's desire. Cherry-picking is when you are free to pick and choose the data you want and to ignore what you don't want. You point to the passages that support your position and are quite free to ignore the ones that contradict it. That's the wonderful thing about the Bible, that you can support just about any position possible with it; eg, both pro- and anti-slavery factions used the same Bible to support their own positions, often with the very same passages.

Science is not quite as obliging, which I guess is why you hate it so much. You cannot cherry-pick scientific evidence. Unlike in theology, it has to all work together.

I think that that is your problem. You think that you can pick and choose the scientific findings that you like (eg, the ones supporting computers and flush toilets) and also ignore the ones you don't like. No, it does not work that way. It all has to work or else there is a big problem.

I even presented an actual case in Message 772 which you chose to completely ignore. Einsteinian relativity is considered by most to be very abstract, pure science, not at all part of your special "applied science." GPS position solutions depend on very precise timing solutions of the satellite signals arriving at the GPS receiver. That timing depends directly on the relativistic effects of being in different places within a gravity well (for the past two decades, I have been working on systems incorporating GPS receivers, so I am familiar with this topic).

The bottom line here is that applied science depends directly on pure science. So your supposed dichotomy between pure and applied science is pure bollocks.

You can cherry-pick your religion until Judgement Day and get away with it, but you cannot cherry-pick science!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Dredge, posted 07-14-2017 12:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18971
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 840 of 1311 (815059)
07-15-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 833 by caffeine
07-14-2017 11:25 AM


Re: Species
While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey?

Indeed, some taxonomists are lumpers and some are splitters, and have actually argued about how many species are involved.

What is more important is the genetic lineage of the various Titi monkeys and their evolution from a common ancestor population.

And that it is different from the Capuchin monkeys.

Names are just labels we humans use to communicate.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by caffeine, posted 07-14-2017 11:25 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
5758
...
88NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017