|
Author
|
Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
Message 151 of 189 (410078)
07-13-2007 6:34 AM
|
|
|
Can this thread be saved?
It's sometimes a little hard to tell what some participants are saying, and so naturally that means one can't always be sure whether they're on-topic or not, but I think it's apparent by now that this thread is off-topic (I helped, I know). I think that before posting additional messages that participants should reread Message 1. In my opinion, there is no "most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory." Most creationists have a religious rather than scientific background, so the significance of the scientific evidence is often unapparent to them. --Percy
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 152 of 189 (410079)
07-13-2007 6:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by Vacate
07-13-2007 6:12 AM
|
|
Re: Try this:
quote:
Irrelevant. When you feel that evolution was introduced is not the topic of discussion.
The originator of a precept is not irrelevent; its original depictions are more impacting than any other factor.
quote:
You have concluded that humans are a unique species/kind/thing/type/example/form simply because they have a feature that other species/kinds/things/types/examples/forms do not.
Correct. The differential is more distinuishing than the commonalities of all life forms. Its abscence in the equation makes it deficient in illustrating the difference and connectivity between species. genesis is correct here.
quote:
IamJ:
Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna. Vacate: How exactly does "Darwin" fail in this regard? How does your definition of bird-kind in any way help me to differentiate a Robin from an Ostrich or a Hummingbird?
Simple: none of the birds have speech; birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute. Genesis' separation criteria is correct. Darwin's criteria is applicable to birds - but since he has categorised them incorrectly, disregading the pivotal differences separating these life forms, the fulcrum differences are not focused or addressed; instead, the factors common to all life are adressed. Thus we know that all life possesses commonalities, but we have no info why they remain different?
quote:
So far your method of organizing life forms is without any substantiation. Its meaningless to state that humans are different because of speech, that much is obvious.
It is a pivotal difference which is not acknowledged - this is the only obvious factor here. All other similarities are meaningless, because while they explain commonalities between all life, they do not explain the pivotal differences which separate them. Genesis does this - without infringing any legitimate, proven premise.
quote:
Show me that you can pass the test of ticking the difference.
I did. The only 'pass' answer is that speech differentiates humans - no other factor applies. Humans are thus a species on their own - regardless of commonalities with all life forms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by Vacate, posted 07-13-2007 6:12 AM | | Vacate has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 156 by Vacate, posted 07-13-2007 7:11 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: 10-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 153 of 189 (410080)
07-13-2007 6:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
07-13-2007 6:34 AM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
I am in the process of reading The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins, and tonight ran into something I found interesting that I believe does fit with the topic.
Richard Dawkins writes: If you follow the population of herring gulls westward to North America, then on around the world across Siberia and back to Europe again, you notice a curious fact. The 'herring gulls', as you move round the pole, gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and morelike lesser black-backed gulls. At every stage aound the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their immediate neighbors in the ring to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, and the ring bites itself in the tail. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull in Europe never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the other side of the world. I found this quite interesting. He also discussed the salamanders of California. If I have some time I will try to provide a summary of what he has to say about the Ensatina.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 6:34 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 154 of 189 (410081)
07-13-2007 6:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
07-13-2007 6:34 AM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
quote:
In my opinion, there is no "most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory." Most creationists have a religious rather than scientific background, so the significance of the scientific evidence is often unapparent to them. --Percy
Not true. The science of evolution cannot be debated without addressing its underlying error of not addressing the pivotal differences between its species classifications. Nor is it a religious arguement that humans have a factor not addressed by darwin's categories - it is absolute and legitiate science to point this out, and one must address the results when this is factored in. Otherwise, one can say also that zebras evolved from calcium particles, and disregard all other factors. But this would also mean, there is no reason for ccategorising differences. Why don't you try to nominate why birds fly and humans possess speech - with scientific coherence? You will find no assistance in darwin here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 6:34 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 157 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 7:22 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 155 of 189 (410084)
07-13-2007 6:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 153 by Vacate
07-13-2007 6:52 AM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
quote:
Richard Dawkins writes:
If you follow the population of herring gulls westward to North America, then on around the world across Siberia and back to Europe again, you notice a curious fact. The 'herring gulls', as you move round the pole, gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and morelike lesser black-backed gulls. At every stage aound the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their immediate neighbors in the ring to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, and the ring bites itself in the tail. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull in Europe never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the other side of the world.
Is this not an external environment impact, as opposed any ininherent traits: there is no indication here of speciation outside the bird family? Humans also exhibit the same quality when different nationalisties are osmosized.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 153 by Vacate, posted 07-13-2007 6:52 AM | | Vacate has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 158 by Vacate, posted 07-13-2007 7:45 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: 10-01-2006
|
Re: Try this:
The originator of a precept is not irrelevent; its original depictions are more impacting than any other factor. The originator does not show "evidence of evolution". Its original depictions have done little to define the differences seen in nature.
birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute. You lost me on the Ostrich. Besides that - the Robin and the Hummingbird both have "air-borne attributes", and so I am still left wanting. What makes the two different enough that we should give them different names? Or are you suggesting all animals with "air-borne attributes" (and several without), from now on simply be called Bird?
Genesis does this - without infringing any legitimate, proven premise. Interesting that you would post such a thing in a thread meant to supply evidence, and then shortly after post this:
The only 'pass' answer is that speech differentiates humans - no other factor applies. Now we are back to the everything thats not a rock - kind. If this is your "legitimate, proven premise" I am really going to have a hard time taking you seriously.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 6:38 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
Hi IamJoseph, Replying to your message would only draw this thread further off-topic. This isn't a thread for creationists to describe what they see as the flaws in evolutionary theory. There are plenty of threads for that, or you could propose a new one if you like. This is a thread for evolutionists to propose what they think is the most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory. The role of creationists in this thread would be to critique these proposals. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 154 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 6:54 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4622 days) Posts: 565 Joined: 10-01-2006
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
Is this not an external environment impact, Yes
there is no indication here of speciation outside the bird family? No, neither Richard Dawkins nor I attempted to show speciation outside the bird family.
Humans also exhibit the same quality when different nationalisties are osmosized. No they do not. Please provide an example of how humans make a complete ring such as the gulls.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 6:59 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5931 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 159 of 189 (410260)
07-14-2007 2:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
07-13-2007 6:34 AM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
SAVE MY THREAD!
Percy writes: In my opinion, there is no "most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory." Most creationists have a religious rather than scientific background, so the significance of the scientific evidence is often unapparent to them. Yes, that occurred to me (and was brought up by others, such as Ringo in msg 25, but seeing as this was in the science forum, I decided not to focus on it. Mind if I bring it up now? It might not be completely on topic, but more relevant than the current tangent. After all, it is related to my question in message 23 - how to make the scientific evidence more compelling. What should you do if someone falls back on an interpretation of the Bible, and uses that as their "History book of the universe" (as Ken Ham would say). Should we try to show that evolution does not conflict with their religion, as theistic evolutionist will attest to, or should we avoid religion completely and focus on science. Or, should we attack the biblical literalism? Personally, I doubt the latter strategy would be wise, because that would just add fuel to the fire (creationists mostly consider evolution as a threat to their religion).
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others. Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 6:34 AM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 161 by jar, posted 07-14-2007 12:26 PM | | Doddy has not replied |
|
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 160 of 189 (410324)
07-14-2007 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
07-12-2007 11:28 AM
|
|
Re: Where's the beef?
Percy: So you're saying that we *have* made empirical observations of evolution, albeit in a devolving environment. It is called 'Natural Selection'. If we can agree to that, then unquestionably... I have three children and they are not clones. Rob: And what is particularly telling, is the problem of origin, in that, evolution (as an assumed universal trait; cosmologically or biologically) does not show itself in any form that is emperical. Percy: And now you're saying that we've never made empirical observations of evolution, including biologically. No, I am referring specifically to the problem of origin, in that it is assumed even by the work going on in the RNA world that life did not sponaneously arrive as 'whole' even on the level of single celled organisms, but occured through some as yet unknown self replicating mechanism which consists of an unspecified series of changes (ie evolution).
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man; the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential...Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme. (source / Darwin's Black Box / Joyce, G.F., and Orgel, L.E. (1993) "Prospects for Understanding the origin of the RNA World" in The RNA world, ed. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, p. 13.) So yes, we have emperical evidence of the one, but not the other. It is simply assumed to be a universal trait- since it happens here, it must have happened there. As Jonathan Wells said, "Natural selection can explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest." What you guys are saying is that because we can see all of this emperically verified evidence of apdaptation here, we are then able to see (though not emperically) what actually is over there. And even though it is not proven, we can proceed with robust confidence. Do you concur? Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 11:28 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 163 by Percy, posted 07-14-2007 1:38 PM | | Rob has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 161 of 189 (410343)
07-14-2007 12:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 159 by Doddy
07-14-2007 2:01 AM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
I think you do need to attack Biblical Literalism, but to be successful, that needs to be done from within the Christian communion. It will not work if the attack comes from someone who does not accept the Bible as a Holy Book, and may not work even if the attacker accepts the Bible as a Holy Book , but that is IMHO the only possible way it might succeed. The approach needs to be multipronged, and I don't think there is any one most convincing evidence. rather it is the overwhelming weight of ALL of the evidence that is compelling.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 159 by Doddy, posted 07-14-2007 2:01 AM | | Doddy has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 162 of 189 (410360)
07-14-2007 1:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
07-14-2007 12:26 PM
|
|
Re: Can this thread be saved?
The approach needs to be multipronged, and I don't think there is any one most convincing evidence. rather it is the overwhelming weight of ALL of the evidence that is compelling. This is why I nominated as "most convincing" the complete inability of creationists to find a single flaw in evolution. Of course, to appreciate this fact, you have to be sufficiently interested in creationist arguments to try to find out if any of them are actually true. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 161 by jar, posted 07-14-2007 12:26 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
|
|
Message 163 of 189 (410362)
07-14-2007 1:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 160 by Rob
07-14-2007 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: Where's the beef?
Hi Rob, Well, I can't see how anything you say in this message echos anything in your earlier message, but if all you were trying to say is that there is little empirical evidence telling us how abiogenesis occurred, I would agree. But this thread isn't about abiogenesis. From your side of fence and returning to the actual topic, what do you see as the most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 160 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 11:02 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 164 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 3:35 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 164 of 189 (410376)
07-14-2007 3:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 163 by Percy
07-14-2007 1:38 PM
|
|
Re: Where's the beef?
Percy: From your side of fence and returning to the actual topic, what do you see as the most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory? That is a flawed question. In my opinion, the most convincing evidence for the theory of evolution, is the supression of truth by men with conflicts of interest. Since there is no emperical (testable scientific) evidence other than circumstantial in nature for the fact of evolution, I was forced to look to the actual cause for it's 'theo'retical invention. As Dr. Henry Morris put it...
UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past...through...
UNKNOWN PROCESSES which no longer exist...produced...
UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found...but could, through
UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life...in an...
UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION...in an...
UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX...at an...
UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE. I've never been in such a strange church as EVC where people eagerly encourage each other that their lifestyles are moral. They invent all kinds of stories to celebrate each other. Perhaps one needs to go to a University to find something equivilant. Phillip Johnson - author ”Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley- Johnson on the question: ”What is Evolution?’
“With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately ”real’, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from. Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists. So the Darwinian story says that ultimately all that is ”real’ is nature. Nature is all there is, and nature is composed of matter; the particles making up matter and energy that physicists study. So, this is the philosophy called naturalism, or materialism. And since that’s all there is, it follows, that matter must have done all the creating that had to be done; that is to say, matter, unassisted by God, or any other intelligent force. According to materialism, a mind can’t exist until it evolves mindlessly from matter. And so it follows that we are the products of an unguided, purposeless material force; which specifically is called Darwinian evolution when you get to the history of life. And so we get our information about it (and really, information about everything) from science.”
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Percy, posted 07-14-2007 1:38 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 165 of 189 (410378)
07-14-2007 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
07-14-2007 3:35 PM
|
|
Stick to the topic Rob
As Dr. Henry Morris put it... UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past...through... UNKNOWN PROCESSES which no longer exist...produced... UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found...but could, through UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life...in an... UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION...in an... UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX...at an... UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE. The topic here is evolution. The list above it about abiogenesis. You've been around for a long time. Why is it that you can't get the definitions right?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 164 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 3:35 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2