|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
My problem with accepting a definition as broad as: change over time or something akin to that is that it doesn't reflect the true colossal nature of the theory.
To set up a hypothetical situation:Evolutionist: Evolution is change in species over time. Me (creationist): I agree Evolutionist: See you are stu... wait, sheeewhat!? It can't be argued that evolution by that definition isn't true. However, where is the line drawn? 5000 years, 20,000 years? If it was drawn out by observation then it would be by best estimates shortly defined. Why then the need to bandy words or debate semantics where an advantage for Camp Evolution would be gained by keeping the desired brevity of definition? To keep the ignorant in the dark? Just wondering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
"Evolution has been taking place since life arose." Nice wording. What about when life was created by a creator and "evolution" is just a variation within a kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I don't know what "biologically useful" means, and why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky, and fish as things in the sea, and animals as things on the land and humans as the fallen masters of this world.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
why it isn't useful to identify birds as things in the sky Cause not all birds fly, and not all flying animals are birds. If it can fly it is a bird.
fish as things in the sea Cause not everything in the sea is a fish. I disagree.
animals as things on the land Cause animals don't exist only on land. I disagree.
Quantifying it anymore seems a waste of time. Yes, cause science is best when its really really really vague and inaccurate. You should invest in tee shirts reading: Science is life.
I am ready to change my opinion if you can supply me with a reason to believe the Linnean model is "biologically useful." It allows us to classify living organisms and show how they are related to each other. I still don't see how it's useful in life. I guess if you want a background for trying to explain how things evolved from each other...you would need something like this. Otherwise, it's relatively useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
they started it dad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Instead of the "Theory of Evolution" it should be called the hypothesis of evolution.
The HOE. I like the bandy of words here at evc, like
"Evolution" of many different sorts, including biological, is a well observed phenomenon. yeah, it is. But not the HOE. Nor is common descent scientific, so to pertain to this thread any mechanism for the HOE or hypothesis of the HOE should be stricken from the definition of "evolution"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
29+ evidences is a stretch.
The intro gets you buttered up by playing on semantic mind games. Most of the rest is telling stories on how life must have evolved. No science in stories. The phylogenic tree makes astounding claims as to what evolved first, but this is based on mostly vertebrate life forms, what about the invertebrate? You know, most of the fossil record. I'd like to see a phylogenic tree from the cambrian layer of invertebrates.
By assuming common descent
assume= ass out of u and me. On vestiges, i would say i doubt whatever research has gone into this subject. Almost every instance of vestigial parts I see I just have to laugh. The hindlegs of a whale? LOL Just because 'science' doesn't know what the purpose is doesn't automatically classify it under vestigial. Silly HOE's (hypothesis of evolutioners) Weak sauce, that article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Okay, so you didn't understand the article. The article explained very carefully how each of these examples fits into the hypothesis-prediction-observation method of science. If you don't understand this, then start a thread on any of these points. Someone I'm sure will be willing to discuss the matter with you. Or join any of the threads in progess. yeah, i understood the yarns that spun my brain around unneccesarily. hypothesis on assumptions on hypothesis dabbed with some theory and even some facts to top it off. The fact is the conclusions might be considered science by the extreme religious zealots in the fundamentals of HOE, however the initial guesswork assumptions are not. Or maybe its vice versa. whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Your so cool. What with your high profile links to superior reading material and access to university libraries. I catch the drift.
Like I said before, vestigial parts are freakin hilarious. I saw one today about the ear ridge on a human. I mean c'mon! Where do they come up with this stuff. Maybe you should take a break from being snooty and really look at what this stuff means and infers. Anyhow though this is off topic, perhaps you should read the rules section? Hmm? ;p
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I knew that would fly over somebody.
In layman's terms, common descent is shit. It's a religion, and should be left out of the definition of evolution. As for joining miobio chik on a debate thread about vestiges, i'll do it. I haven't laughed enough this week. Although it's going to be pretty hard to convince me that whale reproductive anchor bones are tiny vestigial legs. lol that gets me every time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
I't a fair supposition. No-one's come up with a good creationist argument in the last 150 years, so I'd be willing to bet that it's not going to happen here, now, coming from someone totally unfamiliar with the scientific literature. I almost forget how good HOE's (hypothesis of evolutioners) are at assuming things. That kind of faith could be put to good use. ;p Why is it always the opposition that doesn't understand? If I really wanted to immerse myself in scientific literature I'd watch certain porn. Because nothing screams ridiculous like midgets and absurd obesity. Anywise, I used my superior techniques of speed reading (of which you are completely ignorant and stupefied) to skim the all of the articles. I had read them a few times prior to enlisting to EvC so I am aware of "evidences" for macro evolution. Which I think is a bunch of fairy tales and that's how I would paraphrase it to someone who hadn't read it. Here's a good creationist argument, your stupid. Oh wait,... that's already taken by you.AND FOR THE LAST TIME READ THE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE WAY OFF TOPIC!!! MOLBIOCHIK! WE NEED HELP!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6030 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Do you have any idea of the physics involved in sex magic?
You clearly are ignorant of science. ME: 4.3 billion You: 0
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024