EvC Forum: Evolution: a red herring?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Evolution: a red herring?

RickJB

Member (Idle past 5021 days)

Posts: 917

From: London, UK

Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 7 of 120 (377318)
01-16-2007 5:18 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
01-15-2007 7:14 PM

Limbosis writes:

But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.

No, Creationists always seem to forget what a scientific theory actually is, despite being told over and over again.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 1 by limbosis, posted 01-15-2007 7:14 PM		limbosis has not replied

RickJB

Member (Idle past 5021 days)

Posts: 917

From: London, UK

Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 17 of 120 (377367)
01-16-2007 1:24 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by limbosis
01-16-2007 12:58 PM

Re: Oh? Is that the case, eh?

Limbosis writes:

But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis.

A theory is a hypothesis that is consistently backed by empirical evidence and that can be used to make predictions. The theory of electromagnetism, for example, makes your computer work - is that a "guess"?

Limbosis writes:

It is a bit odd that the notion did not present itself until the 19th century.

But it did.

Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml

Limbosis writes:

Yes, there are some lovely creatures in the Galapagos. But it's not much different than anywhere else really, in terms of organic diversity.

The Galapgos represented a microcosm in which Darwin's ideas could be clearly elucidated.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by limbosis, posted 01-16-2007 12:58 PM		limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 38 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:11 AM		RickJB has replied

RickJB

Member (Idle past 5021 days)

Posts: 917

From: London, UK

Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 22 of 120 (377502)
01-17-2007 6:40 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by limbosis
01-17-2007 2:30 AM

Re: the population dilemma

Limbosis writes:

Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws (like gravity, motion, etc.) I don't blame them, though.

Wrong yet again! A law governs an individual action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. A theory of motion, for example, is governed by lots of separate laws.

It is you who is confused, but hey, I don't blame you....

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by limbosis, posted 01-17-2007 2:30 AM		limbosis has not replied

RickJB

Member (Idle past 5021 days)

Posts: 917

From: London, UK

Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 39 of 120 (377731)
01-18-2007 3:40 AM

Reply to: Message 38 by limbosis
01-18-2007 3:11 AM

Re: Now we're getting somewhere!

Limbosis writes:

Be that as it may, can you make a prediction based on TOEvo that you can back by empirical evidence, which is said to parallel the theory beyond a single change in "species"?

For starters, evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record. Tiktaalik, a creature predicted by evolution, was found AFTER paleontologists went looking for it. They went to Ellesmere Island purposely looking for intermediates between Panderichthys and the first tetrapods. They searched rock strata from what they thought would be the correct era and found such a fossil. Simple.

Limbosis writes:

Even if you could, it would still be remarkably flimsy.

In other words, "even if I'm wrong, I'm still right", yes?

Limbosis writes:

Greek: I'm not sure how that even resembles the 19th century approach.
Medieval: Not much info. What little there is seems to lend support for creation.
Kant: Bright guy, but evidently quite an apologist, so much so that I wonder if his agenda was ever noble.
Linnaeus: Creationist all the way.
E. Darwin: Apparently somewhat of an apologist, as well.
Lamarck: Spoke to the idea that eventually became known as eugenics.
Malthus: Pure evil. Scientific Racism at its lowest. F#@K Malthus!

I dont really care what you think about them. The point is that your initial assertion has been shown to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 38 by limbosis, posted 01-18-2007 3:11 AM		limbosis has not replied

RickJB

Member (Idle past 5021 days)

Posts: 917

From: London, UK

Joined: 04-14-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 46 of 120 (377847)
01-18-2007 4:41 PM

Reply to: Message 43 by limbosis
01-18-2007 2:53 PM

Re: My Position

Limbosis writes:

I believe that the TOEvo was originally supplied within the context of scientific racism. This was done possibly to attract intelligent yet indecisive people toward the apparently edified principles of science, and ultimately into the comfort of justifying eugenic polocies.

Science is a tool that is used to explain what we see around us. Darwin's motive was to explain what he saw in nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Science isn't about policy, it's about observation.

Now, if some tyrant wishes to use the findings of science to justfiy his dogmatic ideology then that is the result of a human reaction to science, not the science itself.