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 2:37 AM
346 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,341 Year: 23,947/21,208 Month: 1,912/2,468 Week: 5/416 Day: 5/24 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 331 of 936 (805707)
04-20-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Dredge
04-20-2017 1:57 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Instead of calling natural selection. "evolution", why not call it, "natural selection"?

I do.

Instead of calling antibiotic resistance, "evolution", why not call it "antibiotic resistance"?

I do.

How about, "the bacteria have ... developed ... resistance to the antibiotic"?

But that doesn't distinguish between evolution and phenotypic plasticity or ontogenesis.

Or better still, come up with a term that reflects what has actually happened - ie, that a minority of the original population that were always resistance have multiplied and taken over the joint.

But that is not the thing to be described in this case. (Though we do have a word for that. It's also called "evolution".)

Dr. Adequate: "... creationists ... should find another word for it."

Maybe replacing "microevolution" with "applied biology" would work.

That was a bizarre non sequitur.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 1:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 332 of 936 (805711)
04-20-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dredge
04-20-2017 2:05 AM


Re: Desperate evolutionists desperately need proof
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything."

Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them.

You can in fact trust scientists. What you can't do is trust them and believe your halfwitted religious dogma. I see that you've made your choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 2:05 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 333 of 936 (805718)
04-20-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Dredge
04-20-2017 2:02 AM


Are creationists anti-science?
Creationists don't reject anything that is useful in applied biology, so your claim that "creationists are ... inherently anti-science" is baseless.

"Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else.

You have made my case for me. Creationists think they can pick and choose from science, accepting some things and rejecting others for religious reasons. The fields they reject they do their best to undermine. We see that on a daily basis here, and we see it throughout the country in creationist's efforts take over school boards (Dover) and to mandate their beliefs in school text books (see the recent efforts in Texas, for example). (See posts from Faith and Davidjay for additional examples.)

There is no way these efforts can be seen to be supporting science--they are clearly anti-science. You have even included the "good science vs. bad science" nonsense in your post, referring to "anything that is useful in applied biology." You clearly mean to exclude evolution, much of geology, genetics and a few related fields that disprove your beliefs as "science which is not useful."

Name one creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology.

Young earth; global flood ca. 4350 years ago. If these beliefs are acted upon they impost a worldview that is completely at odds with the real-world evidence. Given her posts and beliefs, Faith would not be a very effective geologist, for example.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 2:02 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 10:21 AM Coyote has responded
 Message 336 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2017 10:34 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 394 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 334 of 936 (805724)
04-20-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Coyote
04-20-2017 10:05 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science? No, evolutionists are
Creationists are logical and rational, rather than believeing in magic mutations. They usually understand that SCIENCE was created, laws were created (SEE THREAD on LAWS WERE CREATED and did not evolve).

In other words, the Creator (Jesus) created science, and is the GREAT MATHEMATICIAN, ARCHITECT, BUILDER, and GREAT SCIENTIST.

Evolution denies science and gets into their theory of religious evolution as their saving grace and deliverer.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:05 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:22 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 337 by Taq, posted 04-20-2017 10:50 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5989
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 335 of 936 (805726)
04-20-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 10:21 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science? No, evolutionists are
Creationists are logical and rational...

You disprove that claim with every post you make here.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 10:21 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 336 of 936 (805729)
04-20-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Coyote
04-20-2017 10:05 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
The primary problem that creationists are faced with is that they hold beliefs derived completely from their fallible interpretations from their fallible Man-made theologies, beliefs that are contrary to fact. And they made their entire belief systems completely dependent on those false beliefs, such that if any one of those false beliefs turns out to be false, then according to their faulty theology that would completely disprove their religion and their gods. Such an event is inevitable, since those beliefs are contrary to fact and to reality.

Reality disproves those false beliefs, so they must ignore reality. Since science is one of our best tools for discovering and studying reality, they must ignore it as well. But, they also love their computers and their flush toilets, so they cannot reject science completely.

So they cherry-pick science keeping the parts of science that gives them the technology they want while selectively rejecting and ignoring the parts they don't like. Anyone familiar with science knows that you cannot do that, that all of science must hang together. But creationists don't think that way. They think theologically, which means that they feel free to accept some parts and ignore others -- that is exactly what they do with their own religion. And they think that they can change reality simply by redefining a few words, something that does not and cannot actually work, but again something that they do with their religion all the time.

Those actions are indeed anti-science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2017 10:05 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:25 PM dwise1 has responded

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


(2)
Message 337 of 936 (805732)
04-20-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Davidjay
04-20-2017 10:21 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science? No, evolutionists are
Davidjay writes:

Creationists are logical and rational, rather than believeing in magic mutations.

Creationists are illogical and irrational because they deny that mutations happen even when we can observe mutations occurring both in the lab and in the wild.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Davidjay, posted 04-20-2017 10:21 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 338 of 936 (805745)
04-20-2017 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Pressie
04-20-2017 7:10 AM


Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall.

That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law.


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

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- 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 330 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2017 7:10 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:00 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 339 of 936 (805750)
04-20-2017 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by NoNukes
04-20-2017 6:07 AM


A creationist model in progress
Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population.

This belief would obviously affect biological inquiry.

Then I'd like to see HOW it would do so with HBD's scientific work.

It also happens to be that pet theory that you have spent countless hours failing to convince anyone of, and for which there is no biological evidence.

Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more. Yes it is a pet idea of mine, it forms part of my overall model which I tried to spell out in that post. I believe it makes for a consistent coherent model which is all I had in mind as a comparison since HBD rightly says a framework is needed for what he does. Doesn't really matter if you are convinced of it, or he is, or anybody is (since the ToE is a bunch of garbage anyway), the point is that it does amount to a coherent model that could be applied.

At a minimum, if there is no evidence for this, ca-ca, then it cannot be taken as a postulate.

Of course I dispute that the ToE has any evidence, it's all speculation and imagination, so your objection is worth ca ca.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation.

What do you think that the second law of thermodynamics says, Faith?

Oh here come the Pedantic/Semantic Police. Could not care less NN how it is defined. I despise these word games you all substitute for debate about concepts. I've gone back to the post and exchanged "entropy" for the Second Law. Things running down, general deterioration and loss, sun going to burn itself out, and although it is denied by the ToE the fact that DNA is deteriorating and will ultimately do us all in, is part of this. But I put that in a separate entry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 6:07 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:08 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 340 of 936 (805752)
04-20-2017 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by NoNukes
04-20-2017 1:58 PM


Hey, a lot of creationists claim that scientific laws only came to effect after the so-called Fall.

That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you are talking about?

And why would events requiring a working second law be a problem in the Bible?, which is what you seem to be implying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 1:58 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 4:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 341 of 936 (805754)
04-20-2017 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
04-20-2017 2:52 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
quote:

Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more.

That would be the "bias" that suggests that if you want to use selective breeding as a model for evolution you should look at those breeders whose methods are closest to evolution in the wild - instead of deliberately excluding them from consideration ?

Edited by PaulK, : Correct tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 2:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:22 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 342 of 936 (805758)
04-20-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by PaulK
04-20-2017 3:08 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
Breeding is a way of illustrating the essential effects of selection. Other factors unnecessarily complicate the point, introduce elements that only slow down the ultimate effects of selection.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:08 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:29 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 343 of 936 (805760)
04-20-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:22 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
That doesn't change the fact that other breeders better represent evolution in the wild and would be better models if accuracy was your intent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:22 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:32 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 344 of 936 (805761)
04-20-2017 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by PaulK
04-20-2017 3:29 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
Accuracy ISN'T my intent; my intent is to present the most salient feature that defines the process of evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:29 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:37 PM Faith has responded
 Message 360 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2017 9:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 12:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 345 of 936 (805762)
04-20-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Faith
04-20-2017 3:32 PM


Re: A creationist model in progress
in other words you picked a poor example because it supported your opinion. It is hardly "bias" to point that out or disagree.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 3:48 PM PaulK has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
2425
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017