Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 916 of 1311 (815335)
07-19-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by Dredge
07-18-2017 11:28 PM


Re: Black Budgie
This one is just as funny.
Dredge writes:
Darwinists are so gullible.
I don't consider myself a Darwinist; I accept the mechanisms involved in evolutionary theory as practised today. It includes natural selection as one of the mechanisms. Darwin was brilliant in his day with the limited amount of information he had available. So, I don't find you calling me a Darwinist as an insult. I wish I had his brilliance.
If you really want to insult me then call me a Newtonist. I would not appreciate that one at all with my satellite phone and GPS and stuff like like working so well on Einstein's theories...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:28 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 937 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:27 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Porosity
Member (Idle past 2094 days)
Posts: 158
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


(2)
Message 917 of 1311 (815336)
07-19-2017 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge is confused.
Nothing is confusing about the information you're being hand fed.
If you truly wanted to learn about evolution you wouldn't spend so much time deluding yourself with fraudulent claims that have been refuted a thousand times.
But you're not here to learn are you.. You are here to be deceitful, to be misleading , to be disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:18 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 920 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 10:06 AM Porosity has not replied
 Message 938 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:34 AM Porosity has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 918 of 1311 (815337)
07-19-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 914 by CRR
07-19-2017 6:07 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Kerkut was a zoologist and physiologist. Not automatically qualified to comment.
1960 was long, long, long ago in science.
The full text of his book is available at Full text of "Implications of evolution". It's really something. The introduction is reminiscent of Jack Chick's Big Daddy.
He 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:
(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.
(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.
The other assumptions all follow from the second one.
(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.
(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.
(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.
Bog-standard creationist BS. Not a reliable source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 914 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 6:07 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 919 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 9:59 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 931 by CRR, posted 07-19-2017 11:13 PM JonF has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 919 of 1311 (815340)
07-19-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 918 by JonF
07-19-2017 9:33 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Yes, and creationists keep on quoting Kerkut as if nobody else in the world can read that book for free on what my aged mother calls 'The Interwebs'.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 918 by JonF, posted 07-19-2017 9:33 AM JonF has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 920 of 1311 (815342)
07-19-2017 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 917 by Porosity
07-19-2017 9:30 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Porosity, don't be so bad on him. At least I read quite a few real scientific articles on Genetics because of the false claims Dredge keeps on making. Not that I understand much of it, but, even for a novice like me, it's easy to point out the false claims Dredge made.
Hey, I even passed a first year course in genetics at Uni because of the ridiculously stupid things creationists tend to
write about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by Porosity, posted 07-19-2017 9:30 AM Porosity has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 921 of 1311 (815346)
07-19-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. 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". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused.
These are the steps of the scientific method:
As you see, it ends with a conclusion. Common ancestry is a conclusion. Theories are general models which are used to construct hypotheses for specific sets of observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:18 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 925 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2017 11:35 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 939 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:38 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 922 of 1311 (815347)
07-19-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 902 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:44 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Darwinism is a "scientific" attempt to provide a mechanism for how such an evolutionary process might work. But it's still superstition ... scientifically-flavoured superstition.
Perhaps you could post something of substance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:44 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 923 of 1311 (815349)
07-19-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 904 by Dredge
07-18-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Insecticide resistance
Dredge writes:
For starters, Darwinism isn't science ... it's pseudo-science. Darwinism is a cult, and there are similarities between any cult and religion.
When you can't address the science you start calling the theory a pseudo-science. Classic denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:02 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 924 of 1311 (815350)
07-19-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Dredge
07-18-2017 11:32 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Please translate this into English.
They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 11:32 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 940 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:41 AM Taq has replied
 Message 961 by Dredge, posted 07-21-2017 12:27 AM Taq has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 925 of 1311 (815358)
07-19-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 921 by Taq
07-19-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Taq writes:
Dredge writes:
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. 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". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused.
As you see, it ends with a conclusion. Common ancestry is a conclusion. Theories are general models which are used to construct hypotheses for specific sets of observations.
Exactly, when a hypothesis grows up it becomes a conclusion... not a theory.
Just goes to show that those that argue so vehemently against scientific fields know so little about them.
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : added quote boxes

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 921 by Taq, posted 07-19-2017 10:26 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by Dredge, posted 07-20-2017 1:53 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 945 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-20-2017 2:19 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 926 of 1311 (815369)
07-19-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by Dredge
07-18-2017 10:18 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory.
That's kinda like saying a brick gets promoted to a house. What really happens is that a hypothesis is tested; if it fails the test it's discarded, like a damaged brick. But if it passes the test it becomes a brick in the wall, a plank in the theory. The testing tends to spawn new hypotheses which are tested and discarded or added to the wall. Eventually, you get a house (theory).
So common descent is just another brick in the wall. Even without it, there would still be a wall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Dredge, posted 07-18-2017 10:18 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 927 by NosyNed, posted 07-19-2017 3:36 PM ringo has replied
 Message 929 by dwise1, posted 07-19-2017 3:45 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 927 of 1311 (815370)
07-19-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by ringo
07-19-2017 3:26 PM


Hypotheory
I agree with Dredge on this. At least as I've always used it a hypothesis may not be "smaller" than a theory, just less well founded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 3:26 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 928 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 3:43 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 928 of 1311 (815372)
07-19-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 927 by NosyNed
07-19-2017 3:36 PM


Re: Hypotheory
NosyNed writes:
I agree with Dredge on this. At least as I've always used it a hypothesis may not be "smaller" than a theory, just less well founded.
A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 927 by NosyNed, posted 07-19-2017 3:36 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 930 by Taq, posted 07-19-2017 4:40 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 929 of 1311 (815373)
07-19-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by ringo
07-19-2017 3:26 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Similarly, I've heard theories described as "bundled hypotheses", or at least as consisting of bundled hypotheses. The metaphor is like that of a rope (the theory) which is constructed by bundling together many individual filaments (the hypotheses). You can lose a few filaments without losing the rope itself.
This was in the context of creationists trying to disprove evolution through death by a thousand pin-pricks, trying to disprove one or a few individual hypotheses and then declare victory. I guess that's because of their biblical inerrancy mentality in which finding even one single error in the Bible disproves the entire book and their entire religion as well. In contrast, finding a wrong hypothesis has no effect on the theory itself and that wrong hypothesis needed to have been weeded out anyway.
Edited by dwise1, : rope metaphor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 3:26 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 930 of 1311 (815384)
07-19-2017 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 928 by ringo
07-19-2017 3:43 PM


Re: Hypotheory
ringo writes:
A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis.
Precisely.
We could look at the Theory of Relativity as an example. From that theory, or model, you could hypothesize that starlight would be bent as it passes by the Sun. You can test that hypothesis by measuring the location of stars during an eclipse as well as when the stars are farther away from the Sun. If their position changes with relation to other stars, then the hypothesis is confirmed. You can conclude that starlight is bent as it passes by the Sun. That conclusion supports the larger theory. The Theory of Relativity also makes many other testable predictions about things such as time dilation. Relativity started as a theory, not as a hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 928 by ringo, posted 07-19-2017 3:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 932 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2017 12:16 AM Taq 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