|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 6042 days) Posts: 3 From: Fargo, ND, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: scientific theories taught as factual | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fact of evolution: evolution has occured and is occuring.
Theory of evolution: it did and does so in accordance with the law of natural selection and the laws of genetics. Got that? --- Did we have to have a whole new thread just for someone who doesn't know the what "fact", "theory" and "law" means? I mean, they come along quite often, don't they? Couldn't s/he have been referred to one of the zillions of times this has been discussed here already? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So my first question is does the above make sense No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
jrtjr1 writes: Secondly, and probable the more contentious of the two, is the idea (touted by Evolutionist) that we can explain all of the working of the universe by only looking at what is inside the universe. jrtjr1 writes: The suggestion that a jellyfish washed up on a shore one day and lived long enough to grow legs ... jrtjr1 writes: What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence. I notice that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to find out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My apologies, please, enlighten me. Well, I can point out some of your specific mistakes, but you're going to make a lot more unless you sit down with a good book on the subject and try to understand the theory of evolution from the basics on up. Let's look at your particular statements:
jrtjr1 writes: Secondly, and probable the more contentious of the two, is the idea (touted by Evolutionist) that we can explain all of the working of the universe by only looking at what is inside the universe. Some evolutionists think that, some don't: it is a philosophical position that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution per se any more than it has with the theory of gravity. This is why you will find no such statement about epistemology in any biology textbook.
jrtjr1 writes: The suggestion that a jellyfish washed up on a shore one day and lived long enough to grow legs ... ... is a suggestion that no-one ever made. The theory of evolution is about the gradual accumulation, in a lineage, of small germ-line mutations that occur randomly and are then favored by natural selection. What you are describing is the sudden, coordinated, simultaneous appearance of somatic mutations in an individual without natural selection being involved in any point. In just a few words, you've managed half-a-dozen rather basic mistakes. Now, this tells me that you've literally never got through Chapter 1 on any textbook on evolution, or you'd know better.
jrtjr1 writes: What really gets me is even Evolutionist will say stuff to the effect of “The impression of design is over whelming” and then proceed to try and make people believe its’ just a coincidence. And again, if you'd got through Chapter 1 of any book on evolution, you would know that no evolutionist claims that the appearance of design is "just a coincidence". Rather, we all agree that it is an inevitable effect of the law of natural selection. I suggest, again, that you find a good thick book on the subject and start from the beginning. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Two, they’re fully formed creatures, they have functional limbs. Again, this demonstrates a very basic gap in your knowledge. Transitional forms are always fully formed creatures: the law of natural selection requires it. Something that is half one thing and half the other still adds up to one whole animal, which must, in order to be ancestral to anything at all, be able to function in its environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Of course if you assume this fish’s fins were becoming legs there would be several generations that could neither walk nor swim. OK, you don't know the theory of evolution, but you could have applied your common sense. What we would get would be "several generations" which could both walk and swim. In fact, "several generations" is a massive understatement. I am considerably morphologically derived from the lobe-finned fish that were my ancestors, but I can walk and swim (as I believe is true for most mammals). So can lobe-finned fish such as, yes, mudskippers, even to this day. So can amphibians. Mere common sense should tell you that any transition from water to land could also be able to do both. As for the theory of evolution, it predicts that they should be able to do both. In the theory of evolution, a lineage can't get more poorly adapted now in order to be better adapted later. As you yourself point out:
it is more likely then not that a species of fish that could neither swim in water nor walk on land would not be around long enough to bread a new generation. Here you are using a flash of insight into the theory of evolution to argue against evolution. Yes, there can't be useless stages. This is what the theory of evolution says.
Since those least capable of out running or out witting the predators get eaten ... Bear in mind that when the first land vertebrates were crawling ineptly about on the land, there was nothing much to predate them, precisely because they were the first land vertebrates. They didn't have to "outrun" anything, except possibly one another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If I measure the height of my desk as 29 inches +- .5 inches, then I call that a fact. I think I can be far more certain of that than I can of what evolutionists sometimes call facts. At least my measurement is an observation made in accordance with accepted conventions. It does not depend on any kind of interpretation of observations. It depends on an evolutionist uniformitarian presupposition about rulers, despite the fact that creationist scientists have proved that rulers are not constant in length; and on evolutionist preconceptions about space-time which were shown to be wrong by Einstein. Ultimately the evolutionist claim to know what things measure is based on circular reasoning. They measure things with rulers, but how do they know how long rulers are? By measuring them against other rulers! The whole thing is jusst presupposition that rulers measure the right length! Evolutionists can't even decide whether things should be measured in centimeters or inches! And they call this science? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I just hear so much about evidence. Even you mentioned mountains of evidence. But I can't find it ... Where on earth have you been looking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I said I hear so much about evidence but I can't find it. I was pointed to a lot of written material and a few pictures. Well, then let me point you in another direction. Enough with this written material. As though anything written down could have any bearing on the question! Let me direct you instead to the entire natural world. There, my friend, you will find the evidence in non-written form. If you study hard. You may have some difficulty getting permission to quarry some fossil sites, and I believe that molecular phylogeny is still quite expensive, but surely a fearless seeker after truth such as yourself won't let these petty obstacles stand in your way. Alternatively, you could consider reading this despised "written material", since it was written by hundreds of thousands of people who have spent their lifetimes studying nature, and in an entire lifetime you could only succeed in gathering up a few crumbs of the knowledge they've discovered. I recommend the latter course. And frankly, I don't see what more help we can give you over the Internet besides referring you to ... y'know, information. What are we meant to do, kidnap you, drive you to the Grand Canyon and rub your nose in it? What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah, this pretty much nails what I was trying to say. Too much time and effort is wasted on the evolutionist claim that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. If evolutionists are involved in any bait-and-switch tactics, this is it. While it wouldn't quite be correct to say that calling evolution a fact is wrong, it certainly is misleading to attempt to give the impression that evolution is the same type of fact as the height of your desk. Please explain further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is no doubt that the rulers measure the correct length, if used properly. Typical evolutionist. You admit that you have "no doubt". You have made your mind up already about how tall your desk is. You admit, in other words, that your theory is unfalsifiable, a dogma about which there can be "no doubt". This means that rulerarianism is not scientific, it is a religion.
That there is no doubt is established by the adoption of conventions. If you like, it is established by executive fiat. But it is established nonetheless. The meaning of our length words derives from those same conventions ... Not really a big deal, since one inch = 2.54 centimeters, also established by accepted conventions. So you admit that your claim about the height of your desk is just based on uniformitarianist evolutionist ruleratarianismist conventions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The best scientific theories are unfalsifiable. So will you admit that evolutionistianarianismist measurements of your desk are unfalsifiable, in which case they are not science according to Popper, or will you admit that measurements of your desk are not the best science, according to you?
There is no factual basis for the use of falsifiability to distinguish science from religion. It is folklore, though admittedly it is folklore that many scientists find convenient to accept. There are clear distinctions between science and non-science, but falsifiability is not one of them. Incidently, we are way off topic for this thread, so I don't expect to further respond on this side issue. You know I'm joking, right?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024