Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5631 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 226 of 493 (493001)
01-05-2009 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by fallacycop
01-05-2009 1:25 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
greetings fallacycop.I will try to make your forum reading experience a pleasant one.Of course you probably wont like me after im done but that comes with the territory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by fallacycop, posted 01-05-2009 1:25 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Granny Magda, posted 01-05-2009 5:32 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 232 by Agobot, posted 01-05-2009 8:18 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5631 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 227 of 493 (493003)
01-05-2009 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Coyote
01-04-2009 10:03 PM


Re: Occams razor...
greetings coyote.
quote:
You come here full of "gotcha" questions
Ive spent most of my life struggling with the existence of God.In some ways it would be easier to conclude he aint there.For a fair period of my life i lived it like he isnt.I have an enquiring mind.And believe not to trust everything i read and hear.Im a doubting thomas.Its served me well so far.
quote:
What is the age of the earth?
Older than 6000 years.Id hazard a guess and say 3- 4 billion years old.By definition im not actually a fundamentalist or a creationist in the strictest sense of the word.I also believe parents have the right to choose whats taught to their children in schools and shouldnt have anything forced upon them that they dont agree with.Im not part of any intelligent design movement.I dont read creationist websites as i think they have some things wrong as well,starting with the age of the universe.
quote:
Would any scientific evidence convince you that your belief in creationism is incorrect?
Of course.But lets be realistic here.This debate has participants that are so firmly entrenched in their particular set of beliefs that nothing short of God whupping atheists upside their heads or absolutely irrefutable evidence that there aint a God would change our varying views.The evidence would have to be extremely compelling.In some ways this website has NOT changed anyones view but has given each sides view an airing anyway.I believe there is a God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Coyote, posted 01-04-2009 10:03 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Admin, posted 01-05-2009 7:33 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 235 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 12:19 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 5009 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 228 of 493 (493004)
01-05-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Huntard
01-05-2009 4:01 AM


Huntard writes:
It isn't based upon that [primordial soup] "fact". It's based upon the fact the alelle frequency in a population changes with time.
but i asked if the foundation of the theory of evolution could be called a fact. I dont believe it can be, and yet according to the evolution theory, it magically happened...somehow.
now, im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very scientific to me.
Huntard writes:
They have observed mutations. but not ones that produve new life-forms, unless you want to call every new born life-form a new one, since it has mutations in it that the parents don't have.
So no one has observed any mutations that have created a new species, yet thats how ALL species came into existence...thru gradual 'decent with modification' & 'mutations' & 'natural selection'
So again, the theory is relying on an unproven, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomenon that apparently magically happens...i thought science was about evidence in the sense that it can be 'proven, observed & repeatable?
Huntard writes:
They have witnessed the spontaneous generation of the building blocks of life. This is still an ongoing study.
Yes your talking about the Urey/Miller experiment from over half a century ago. They did well in producing some amino acids in their flask.
But since that time no one, after 50 years of trying, have produced anything any more substantial then that. They are still trying to work out how DNA and RNA even work together let alone how they 'evolved'
yet it magically happened and apparently the (unprovable) primordial soup was responsible for it.
can anyone see why many people do not believe in evolution? However, if you are interpreting 'evolution' to mean gradual changes in a species to provide a great variety within that species, then i can agree with it, because genes do create great variety
the parrot family for instance has a huge variety and they proably did all develop into their separate types within that family through 'evolution'
Humans too.... such a huge variety exists among us
Dogs
Horses
Cats
the variety within a species is endless... to me, this is probably the most likely 'evolution' senario

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 4:01 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Huntard, posted 01-05-2009 9:34 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 234 by Modulous, posted 01-05-2009 11:18 AM Peg has replied
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2009 11:56 PM Peg has not replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 118 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 229 of 493 (493005)
01-05-2009 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:04 AM


Attention Seekingfirst
Hi seekingfirstthekingdom,
I'm am not an admin, but I have to remind you that you were asked to stop posting to this thread. The administration team at EvC do not mess about. If they ask you to stop posting, they mean it.
Fortunately, there is a new thread set up specifically for you to air your grievances about evolution. You can find it here.
I hope this helps.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13081
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 230 of 493 (493017)
01-05-2009 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:29 AM


Re: Occams razor...
Hi Seeking,
EvC Forum is a debate site for exploring the scientific underpinnings of the creation/evolution debate. We do not coddle members who are having difficulty getting into the spirit of scientific discussion. If evolution is wrong then here at EvC Forum you have to take a scientific approach to demonstrating this.
No moderator is going to give you feedback about what you're doing right or wrong - either you're capable of scientific discussion or you're not. Experience indicates that coaching doesn't work, so we no longer attempt to coach members into an understanding of what is expected here.
But your difficulties go beyond this. You also have a problem with following moderator requests. In an exceptionally short period of participation you've already drawn the attention of two moderators, and you've listened to neither one.
So I'm going to make this very simple for you. If upon your return tomorrow there isn't a big improvement I will suspend you immediately for a week. And if when you return from that suspension there still isn't a big improvement I will suspend you permanently.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:29 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2557 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 231 of 493 (493018)
01-05-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 9:40 PM


seekingfirstthekingdom writes:
mantis writes:
The evidence we have right now indicates that there was only one initial ancestor.
Permit me to utterly annilihate the horse im riding on.I feel bad once again emphasing that evolutionary supporters make assertions like this.You cant show me this in the fossil record.You cant show me this in the natural world.
We can show you the relicts of the common ancestor in the natural world. They are in your own genome, and comparison of that genome to any other life forms (viruses excepted) shows the common ancestry.
seeking writes:
Nothing is even remotely like this animal.
You and I are exactly that. Remotely like "this animal". The most recent common ancestor of all animals is a creature with just one genome, like us. All animals share whole sections of that creature's genome, so all are "remotely like" it. The differences are all attributable to known processes (the many different types of mutation) that still happen now, and can be observed.
The examination of the genomes of extant creatures can only be explained by common ancestry, or by some kind of omphalism (like an intelligent designer who was deliberately trying to make it look that way, including going to the lengths of putting common damage in the genomes of closely related genera in the same pattern).
The common ancestor is a relatively simple self-replicating organism that mutates occasionally. A varied and ever changing environment, natural selection and genetic drift do the rest. There is nothing special about this ancestral animal. Seed a barren but hospitable planet with one of our modern micro-organisms and you could get a similar result.
A large genome is not required. Duplication and mutation on duplicated genes can produce increased genomic complexity, and unrequired material can be eliminated by deletion.
To those who understand the molecular evidence, macro-evolution and common ancestry are the only reasonable explanations for what we see.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 9:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 232 of 493 (493025)
01-05-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:04 AM


Re: Start conducting an honest discussion, Seeking
I can't understand this ridiculous perseverance to prove Evolution theory wrong. In spite of all the evidence - viruses and bacteria mutations(HIV,flu,etc...), wolves turning to dogs, chickens losing the ability to fly, tons of fossils, etc, etc...
Swallow it, if there is a god, it wants to fool us that we are alone out there(although modern physics forces us to re-think our notions of space, time and the notion of "out there"). If god wants us to believe in the TOE, there is nothing we can do. If god set up everything so that it would look like we came to be what we are through completely random mutations, you stand zero chance against god's plans. We can only hope that the reasoning we call logic is not limited or outright wrong outside the scope of our collective experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 233 of 493 (493027)
01-05-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Peg
01-05-2009 5:31 AM


Peg writes:
but i asked if the foundation of the theory of evolution could be called a fact.
The foundation of the theory of Evolution CAN be called a fact. The foundation of the theory of evolution is the fact that allele frequrncies in a population change over time.
I dont believe it can be, and yet according to the evolution theory, it magically happened...somehow.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the arisal of the first life form, it only comes into play after life has formed.
now, im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very scientific to me.
That's becasue you are wrong.
So no one has observed any mutations that have created a new species
You said life-forms, not species.
yet thats how ALL species came into existence...thru gradual 'decent with modification' & 'mutations' & 'natural selection'
It is. Notice how you said gradual. So, you can;t have an entirely new species getting born to a now existing species, that wouldn't be gardual.
So again, the theory is relying on an unproven, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomenon that apparently magically happens...i thought science was about evidence in the sense that it can be 'proven, observed & repeatable?
Again, that's because you are wrong.
Yes your talking about the Urey/Miller experiment from over half a century ago. They did well in producing some amino acids in their flask.
Indeed they did.
But since that time no one, after 50 years of trying, have produced anything any more substantial then that.
You'll have to excuse me for not knowing the exact daetails, but I believe you are wrong, ther have been numerous experiments done, and they all confiremed the Urey-Miller experiment, and even refined it. Like I said I can't provide the details, so you'll have to ask someone else to provide them for you. By no means take my word for it though.
They are still trying to work out how DNA and RNA even work together let alone how they 'evolved'
How DNA evolves is very well known. How it originated maybe not (don;t know about it anyway) but taht has nothing to do with evolution.
yet it magically happened and apparently the (unprovable) primordial soup was responsible for it.
Nothing to do with evolution. Everything pertaining to this has to do with abiogenesis.
/can anyone see why many people do not believe in evolution?
Yes, because they've been told lies about it, and don;t understand what it really says.
However, if you are interpreting 'evolution' to mean gradual changes in a species to provide a great variety within that species, then i can agree with it, because genes do create great variety
What is the mechanism that stops it going over the species boundary?
the parrot family for instance has a huge variety and they proably did all develop into their separate types within that family through 'evolution'
So, would you say the "parrot species" has a different ancestor then the "chicken species"?
Humans too.... such a huge variety exists among us
Actually, we are VERY similar.
Dogs
Horses
Cats
the variety within a species is endless... to me, this is probably the most likely 'evolution' senario
So, why does it stop when getting to the "species level"? In fact, the evolution of new species has been observed, so no matter what you answer here, you're allready wrong.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 5:31 AM Peg has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 234 of 493 (493031)
01-05-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Peg
01-05-2009 5:31 AM


The theory of evolution contains no magic. That's the "other side's" theory.
but i asked if the foundation of the theory of evolution could be called a fact.
I don't know what this means. The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework that explains the fact of evolution. In a sense then, the 'foundation' can be called a fact. Populations do change over time - and the evidence indicates that the changes have been highly significant over time.
I dont believe it can be, and yet according to the evolution theory, it magically happened...somehow.
No, according to the the theory of evolution it happened through various means, horizontal transfer, neutral drift, chance mutations of the genome, various epigenetic effects, natural selection (and its subsets such sexual selection, 'arms races', artificial selection etc etc). There is no magic in the the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution contains very specific explanations. 'Somehow' isn't in there.
now, im no scientist, but that doesnt sound very scientific to me.
Your version isn't scientific. The scientist's version involves heritable changes in phenotypes and genotypes amongst populations of organisms which undergo differential reproductive success, due to reproducing more than can survive and therefore having to struggle to the death for limited resources.
So no one has observed any mutations that have created a new species, yet thats how ALL species came into existence...thru gradual 'decent with modification' & 'mutations' & 'natural selection'
Actually we've observed it quite a lot. Naturally observations that can be seen on human time scales mean that it is for small and quickly reproducing organisms like bacteria and particularly things like fruit flies - but we've definitely observed speciation events caused by the gradual accumulation of mutation events. Such things are easily found online.
So again, the theory is relying on an unproven, unobservable, unrepeatable phenomenon that apparently magically happens...i thought science was about evidence in the sense that it can be 'proven, observed & repeatable?
No, you were just using non scientific terminology. You said 'new life forms' or some such thing which is meaningless, as was pointed out, since it can mean just about anything. You have since clarified you meant 'new species' and this is something we have observed.
Yes your talking about the Urey/Miller experiment from over half a century ago. They did well in producing some amino acids in their flask.
But since that time no one, after 50 years of trying, have produced anything any more substantial then that.
This is not the case - in the last fifty years leaps and bounds have been made and complex organic chemicals have been formed beyond just amino acids. You may take the argument to the origin of life forum where the case can be tackled in more depth.
There is some interesting stuff in organic biochemistry now - look around or start a new topic and learn all about it - you might be surprised.
They are still trying to work out how DNA and RNA even work together let alone how they 'evolved'
What do you mean? Last I checked biologists were fairly comfortable with the actual workings of DNA and RNA.
yet it magically happened and apparently the (unprovable) primordial soup was responsible for it.
No historical event is provable. Murders, battles, landslides, earthquakes, the existence of dinosaurs, nothing. However, there is evidence that life existed billions of years ago in a much simpler form. Whether it started in what has colloquially been referred to as a soup or not is not entirely established beyond reasonable doubt at this stage. Events that happened 500 years ago, with dozens of witnesses are difficult to piece together beyond reasonable doubt today - we are talking about an event that happened 10 million times longer ago than America was being populated by Europeans with obviously no witnesses. Evidence is bound to be sparse but some educated ideas on the kinds of things that might have happened can be, and are, discussed and tested in labarotories.
can anyone see why many people do not believe in evolution?
Yes, because they have not been exposed to this kind of information and have frequently been told an alternative explanation by people they love and trust such as their parents and religious/spriritual leaders and are put in an obvious dilemma of realizing their parents/trusted spiritual leaders mislead them (intentionally or otherwise), their cherished beliefs are erroneous etc etc or denying strangers whose own epistemology requires many years of specialist training to understand even close to fully and a mountain of very specific and difficult to learn knowledge with regards biology and chemistry. They have managed to convince themselves that their knowledge of the subject is good enough to dismiss it, primarily because their life has been grounded at least partially on the idea that it is false.
It is much easier to believe in magic and woo or whatever personal viewpoint you happen to hold than to challenge it and change your mind. I have experienced this many times from gun control, UFOs, ghosts, the evidence for God, Santa Claus, Tibet/China and Palestine/Israel, fox hunting and countless others including evolutionary biology. The psychology is interesting and familiar to me - it is incredibly rare to find a person that denies evolution that also understands it and doesn't make any money out of said denial. It is rarer still to find someone who might admit that it is a teensy bit arrogant for someone who has spent zero years at university studying the subject to believe they have a grasp of the subject superior to that of people who have been in the field for twenty years actually doing the experiments, reading the primary literature and even writing some of it.
So yes, we can see why so many people do not accept evolution. It is quite natural for people to reject such hypothesis. It is no coincidence that people that reject the Theory of Evolution also reject other hypotheses that step on certain religious or cultural beliefs. Things such as abiogenesis, geology, anthropology, cosmology and so on and so forth - in the areas where such things contradict certain beliefs that have been embedded in our culture for centuries or even millennia...it is not difficult to see why evolutionary ideas which have been around for a millennia but have only really had satisfactory explanations for 150 years or so might be rejected by those who have not spent the long hours required to study and rethink and admit that they and those they love and trust have been wrong for their entire lives.
You can see it in action. Long and thoughtful posts that try and give as complete an answer as possible given the constraints of the medium are ignored or only partially responded to. Certain sentences are picked out and "Aha! Gotcha" replies are made. This is the hallmark of someone that doesn't want to challenge their own beliefs, someone who is committed to their ideas but won't take the time to explain them and expose them to criticism and they won't go into any details about why the extensive posts of others are wrong they'll just say silly things about how the theory of evolution postulates magic events and 'poofs' and avoid substantive scientific discussions all the while criticising the science of the subject. It's quite sad, rather inevitable and yet I still retain some optimism that I might come across someone who is really willing to get their hands dirty facing what is a very scary subject. The implications of evolution and the natural history uncovered so far are metaphorically world-shaking - is anyone at all surprised at the nature and character of the opposition?
However, if you are interpreting 'evolution' to mean gradual changes in a species to provide a great variety within that species, then i can agree with it, because genes do create great variety
That's all evolution is. Natural history describes the history of such changes going back throughout the entire history of 'nature' where nature generally refers to biology. If you use the terms interchangeably you are going to cause yourself great confusion when you try and understand the science behind it all. The science is older than you are - it is best to stick with the terms it uses or you'll get a headache.
Evolution: Populations change over time.
Natural History: The history of how life has come to be and has subsequently changed over the past 4 billion years on earth.
The theory of evolution: A theory that describes how populations can change, split into distinct populations and so on. This theory is used to explain everything from how two species of fruitfly diverge in a lab over the course of a few months all the way up to how the divergence of life from single celled organisms has arrived at the startling complexity we are privileged to be a part of today.
Humans too.... such a huge variety exists among us
Dogs
Horses
Cats
the variety within a species is endless... to me, this is probably the most likely 'evolution' senario
'Cats' are not a species. Unless you think the cute black and white thing purring on my lap right now is the same species as a lion? There is variety within each species (not all lions are the same, obviously), but there is also greater variety within the Felidae family which includes the Pantherinae (the sub family of lions, leopards and so on) and Felinae (the subfamily of cheetahs, lynxes and the black and white critter on my lap).
We can take a step up and say there is greater variation still in the Carnivora Order which includes all cats (all Felidae) and all dogs (the Canidae which includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals etc) as well as about fourteen other families covering about 250 species of placental mammals.
And we can step up to placental mammals (wherein we can now include ourselves and horses), and to mammals in general (throwing in kagaroos and the platypus), and animals in general, and then to life in general. Indeed this ability to 'step up' is one of the best evidences for evolution, but it is also rather difficult to understand so I won't go into it here.
Let's just say that every time you draw a line as to which boundaries of evolution you find acceptable - you need a damned good reason not to take the next little step up and for example deny that all carnivora are related.
For example: if you are prepared to accept that lions are related to my pussing tat, you would have a hard time denying the smilodon is also related to her. From there you would have difficulty denying Machairodus is related to her. Why not the leopard cat? And if the leapard cat why not the civet cat and why not the mongoose? Once you've accepted that my little Niobe is related to the mongoose you'll find yourself being drawn to accept the relationship with the hyena and the you would have to concede hyenas and dogs. Eventually the whole carnivora has opened up.
Naturally presenting you with a complete answer that satisfies all possible questions and issues you might have with the subject is difficult but I hope you will take the time to read my post fully and I'd certainly enjoy a response that has had a similar amount of time and effort that this one has had. If not - I'll wish you the best and maybe we'll have the opportunity for a good and thorough debate in some other thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 5:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 10:51 PM Modulous has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 235 of 493 (493035)
01-05-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:29 AM


Re: Occams razor...
Ive spent most of my life struggling with the existence of God.In some ways it would be easier to conclude he aint there.For a fair period of my life i lived it like he isnt.I have an enquiring mind.And believe not to trust everything i read and hear.Im a doubting thomas.Its served me well so far.
So, do you doubt the bible? If not, why not? There isn't exactly much evidence for most of the claims it makes.
Older than 6000 years.Id hazard a guess and say 3- 4 billion years old.By definition im not actually a fundamentalist or a creationist in the strictest sense of the word.I also believe parents have the right to choose whats taught to their children in schools and shouldnt have anything forced upon them that they dont agree with.
So, if parents don't agree with the fact that the earth is round, should their children not be taught this? What about the holocaust? There are people who deny it happened, should their children be taught it didn't happen?
Im not part of any intelligent design movement.I dont read creationist websites as i think they have some things wrong as well,starting with the age of the universe.
May I then ask how you came about your erroneous view of evolution?
Of course.
Then why do you dismiss it out of hand?
But lets be realistic here.
I am.
This debate has participants that are so firmly entrenched in their particular set of beliefs that nothing short of God whupping atheists upside their heads or absolutely irrefutable evidence that there aint a God would change our varying views.
First of all, I hold no beliefs, I base my views on facts.
Second, if there's no evidence for something, I'm not going to call it a fact. If god would have been very clear about his existence, and left evidence everywhere, he could count me in. The simple fact of the matter is, he didn't leave a single shred. Now, when we look to evolution, there's overwhelming evidence for it, despite your denying it. Now I ask you what conclusions should I draw from these two givens?
The evidence would have to be extremely compelling.
It is. The fact you reject it, or don't understand it (evidenced by the fact you called homo habilis a chimp) doesn't change this.
In some ways this website has NOT changed anyones view but has given each sides view an airing anyway.
As it should. It's not the websites fault some people have their eyes closed to The Truth (tm).
I believe there is a God.
What makes you think evolution is not compatible with god? It's perhaps not compatible with a literal reading of genesis. But genesis could've been a lie by men about god. And the writers of genesis are now burning in hell. What makes you think that god and evolution are incompatible?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:29 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 236 of 493 (493046)
01-05-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Peg
01-05-2009 2:00 AM


Hypothetical Writing 101
Hi, Peg.
I wish there were a way to adequately express my intellectual fatigue without it coming off as frustration. Please read this post in a tired, somber voice so you get the appropriate emotional content.
Thank you.
-----
Peg writes:
firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?
It's funny that you would ask me this when the score so far is 7-0. If there's a point you're trying to make, you'd probably be better off trying to make it to someone else, yeah?
I don't really care what you call it. To me, it might as well be a fact. We've seen it happen in laboratories. That makes it a fact.
But, since most people agree that the implications are much more expansive than bacteria getting new "super-powers," and since I prefer consistency to technicality, and since I like to emphasize the nature of the scientific method, I prefer to stick to the term "theory."
It's not a derogatory term in scientific circles, after all.
-----
Peg writes:
Bluejay writes:
life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.
...the primoridal soup idea...where is the evidence for it? What physical proof of the soup do we have that can physically be examined and tested?
Do you know how to read hypothetical statements, Peg? Here's the full quote, if anybody's interested:
Bluejay, message #212, writes:
God could design 100 completely different organisms and put them on a planet, and they could still evolve. Likewise, life could arise from a "primordial soup" several different times, and each of these could evolve separately. You do not need only a single starter to make evolution happen.
Did you notice how I juxtaposed a hypothetical creationist scenario with a hypothetical naturalistic scenario (these are color-coded for your convenience)? Notice also the tentative language cues (these are bolded: you are aware that "could" is the conditional mood for "can," and not just the past tense, right?).
I did all of that on purpose. The point of that paragraph was not to interject an argument for abiogenesis into the debate, but, rather, to show that evolution and common descent are not the same thing, and that evolution could theoretically happen under a number of scenarios that do not involve a single common ancestor (please note the conditional mood of "could" in this sentence). Also note that the purpose of the paragraph was explicitly stated in the last sentence (that's the one in white letters above, in case you missed it).
For the love of God, Peg, please keep context in mind when you make an argument. If you don't know how, please consider taking a technical writing course: it will do you worlds of good in such areas as "staying on-topic" and "interpreting what evolutionists are saying to you."
(did you remember to do the somber voice?)
Edited by Mantis, : Imperfect subjunctive tense.
Edited by Mantis, : "please note the conditional mood of 'could' in this sentence"

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Peg has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4269 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 237 of 493 (493049)
01-05-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Peg
01-05-2009 2:00 AM


firstly, you have called it a theory 7 times... i thought it was a 'fact'... which is it? Fact or Theory?
To put it bluntly, both. The fact is that evolution occurs, the theory is how it occurs. The fact doesn't change but the theory can be falsified if a better theory is found. The is that same for Gravity, plate tectonics, oxydation-reduction, periodic law, Copernican Solar system etc. All are both facts & theories.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Peg, posted 01-05-2009 2:00 AM Peg has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2778 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 238 of 493 (493051)
01-05-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-05-2009 5:02 AM


Hi, Seefer.
I know you've been suspended, but I find that rather unfortunate, because it seems like you and I are finally understanding each other. I'd like to add a couple comments to what has been said by others in the hopes that we can continue a productive dialogue.
Seefer writes:
Bluejay writes:
Will you acknowledge that evolution does not require all life to have arisen from a single common ancestor?
I acknowledge it. In fact you might have noticed i firmly believe its impossible .
This is promising.
Evolution = change from generation to generation
Common Descent = all organisms today are evolutionary descendants of a single common ancestor
All right, so, let's return to your initial questions:
Seefer, post #129, writes:
1. Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?
(some formatting added by Mantis)
You can see now how this question only applies to the Theory of Common Descent (CD), and not to the Theory of Evolution?
CD predicts that there is a single, common ancestor; but we don’t have nearly enough data available to us yet to make any good conclusions about the exact character of the common ancestor.
Will you acknowledge that there is a difference between (a) predicting that there is a common ancestor based on available information, and (b) knowing precisely what the common ancestor was?
-----
Seefer, Post #129, cont’d, writes:
Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils (naming them would be nice) it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
(some formatting added by Mantis)
This question is probably even less possible to answer than the first question.
But, in Wheel of Fortune, do you need to have all the letters in place before you can figure out what the phrase is?
If not, why do you believe that we need to know all the pieces of this scientific puzzle to figure out what the big picture is?
-----
Seefer writes:
I understand that life could of arisen from differing organisms. Thats another topic and when you think about it requires some even more science suspending events to have happened.
I’d love to discuss this with you (on a new thread), if you’re interested. But, for now, given the moderators’ moods, maybe we should work out this debate before we try to start a new thread.
-----
Seefer writes:
Thank you once again for staying on topic.
I should perhaps also point out that the questions that you raised aren’t technically the topic of this thread, so it might be wise if you were to avoid policing “on-topic” issues in this case.
-----
Seefer writes:
This debate has participants that are so firmly entrenched in their particular set of beliefs that nothing short of God whupping atheists upside their heads or absolutely irrefutable evidence that there aint a God would change our varying views.
Although this also isn’t the topic of the thread, I feel it prudent to point out that this debate is not about religion vs atheism, either. You may or may not have discovered yet that I am Christian myself. The important part about this debate is to leave your own beliefs out of it, such that, where there is no evidence, you do not default to a certain position, but allow the evidence that is present to serve as a basis for “predicting” the correct answer to an unknown question.
Most of us fail at it (sometimes quite spectacularly), but, I have noticed that my evolutionist colleagues do a much better job at trying than my fellow Christians. As scientists, we stumble and bumble along, trying to find meaningful answers to a myriad of questions without resorting to impulsive or uncritical belief systems, but we're not any more perfect than anyone else, and, human nature is to be impulsive and uncritical

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-05-2009 5:02 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 239 of 493 (493062)
01-05-2009 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 8:14 PM


reply thread
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #6 HERE (click on this link)
Edited by RAZD, : no sig
Edited by RAZD, : #

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 8:14 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 240 of 493 (493072)
01-05-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-04-2009 8:24 PM


more reply
seekingfirstthekingdom:
See reply #7 HERE (click on this link)
and reply #8 HERE (click on this link)
Edited by RAZD, : #'s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-04-2009 8:24 PM seekingfirstthekingdom 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