evolution discussion with faith

Sheesh. Did you even follow the link to my post? It is to a straightforward narrative on how the ToE allowed a better understanding of cancer based on such things as fruit fly egg development. It's one example, not "a long list of homework." If it seems overwhelming to you, ask questions, don't dismiss it.Since further discussions of such examples are off-topic here, I suggest you post in the linked thread if you have questions.

OK I'll look again -- later though. I had the impression it was a list of examples and sorting through them seemed a lot to ask. But maybe I didn't spend enough time checking it out. I do have an aversion to being referred to links.

I have no disrespect whatever for any science whatever. I've already answered this and it's only going to get tedious to keep repeating it. I don't regard any of this work as dependent in any way on the ToE. What you are calling the ToE I recognize as simply processes of variation and selection that creationists understand within a different explanatory framework. It's a definitional thing. You work with these processes, not with the theory.

This can't just be asserted, it has to be shown via an example for the sake of this thread.

Excellent. Indeed, you guys don't have a name for your theory of variation and selection...why don't you use the already existing name? I assure you, its the same thing. Creationism is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution - it agrees with it, Creationism has issues with the scientific hypothesis of origins and natural history.

I am not a biologist, so I will have to defer on most of the examples. But here is one.The system of plant and animal classification is based on the evolutionary tree.Before we had ToE, classification was based on the Linnaen system. That was close enough to the evolutionary tree that the evidence for evolution became impossible to miss. Today it is based on the evolutionary tree.The evolutionary tree is used, because it best fits the data. The Linneaus system was close to the evolutionary tree, because Linneaus devised it to fit the data. He just got it a little wrong, because the data was not as complete at that time.

For obvious reasons. It automatically suggests that there are no limits to the processes of variation and selection. OK. Then my criticism of the ToE should not get me accused of disrespecting science.

And this is based on what? Fossils or genetics?

quote:

---

I have no disrespect whatever for any science whatever.

---

Does it make sense that the thousands of people getting PhD's and spending their lives studying vatious branches of Biology, Genetics, and several other life science fields over the last 150 years are so incompetent at generating explanations and testing them that very nearly all of them have been utterly wrong to base their research on the ToE?You will likely deny thinking all Biologists, Geneticists, etc. incompetent, but that is the only logically consistent position you can hold.My prediction held true, it seems!Clearly, if Biologists and Geneticists are supposed to be good at doing science, which consists of generating explanations and testing the consequesnces of the explanations, you must think that they are completely incompetent.If you reject the overarching explanation that they use in all of their work, the consequences of which that have been tested and found by these Biolofists and Geneticists to work perfectly well, then you must conclude that they are so poor at developing explantions and testing their consequences that they have continued to get it completely wrong for 150 years.Oh, and just to reiterate what others have said, the "processes" of imperfect replication and selection that you accept are the ToE. The ToE is not "based upon" these processes; the ToE is those processes.That's why you are an evolutionist, even though you don't think you are.

They DON'T "base their" research on the ToE. You haven't shown this.

quote:

---

Then my criticism of the ToE should not get me accused of disrespecting science.

---

You accept the basic premise of the ToE, Faith, no matter if you realize it or not.

Then it's not the ToE, it's something else. That's the point.

quote:

---

They DON'T "base their" research on the ToE. You haven't shown this.

---

Yes, they do, and you have been shown.But here's another example.The entire field of Population Genetics is based upon the ToE being an accurate explanation of nature.IOW, the predictions that Population geneticists make wouldn't ever be fulfilled if the ToE was not correct.Here is an excerpt from the Wiki, which is pretty good: But this is really beside the point.Do you ageree that Population Geneticists do the same basic scientific work as all other fields of science; formulate explanations of natural phenomena and then test the consequences of those explanations?Or, are they incompetent at doing science?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2006 11:46 AM

You accept that allele frequencies in populations change over time due to imperfect replication and selection by the environment.That's the ToE in a nutshell.

quote:

---

Expertise is not the same as what they do.

---

I know.Their skill is developing explanations for natural phenomena and then testing the consequences of the explanations.ALL scientists do this, don't you agree?

quote:

---

You are asking the wrong question. The main expertise of a scientist is a deep an thorough knownledge of his discipline, and of tools (such as mathematics) that are useful to the discipline.

---

But then all a scientist is, using this definition, is a knowlegable lab or field tech.

quote:

---

What empirical scientists do, is systematically study some aspect of the world that fits within their specialty. An intense curiousity is part of this systematic study. Their work may involve devising suitable ways of systematizing their study. It may involve devising measurement methods or other methods for gathering data.

​

Explanations of natural phenomena emerge from this kind of study. But I think it is a bit too simple to say that what scientists do is "generate explanations of natural phenomena and test."

---

It is, however, the skill that is common to all scientists, and crucial for the basic work of science.