Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 121 of 295 (447216)
01-08-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
01-08-2008 2:44 PM


ICANT writes:
If you are talking about the difference in a Chihuahua dog (small dog under 6 lbs) and a great dane (huge dog over 32 inches tall) I see no problems. I think it would be neat to start with a pair of chihuahuas and produce a great dane.
Okay, so start with chihuahuas and produce great danes. Now you've got a pair of great danes. What's to prevent their future generations from producing yet further change? Ringo's question is asking you to consider what barriers exist to change?
Addressing your next message, too, Message 115:
ICANT in Message 115 writes:
There is not a transmutation whether I like or not, whether you like or not. The child has not ceased to be a human being.
Again, transmutation is not a biological term. If you reread Ringo's message, he's just trying to accommodate your desire to use this term, but he made very clear from context that he considers the change from parent to child to be a transmutation, not because the child is no longer a human being, but because the child is not identical to the parent.
And answering your next message, too, Message 118:
ICANT in Message 118 writes:
So every change is a transition. Every generation is transitional.
Who passed that law?
That every generation is different from the previous generation is just a simple observation, and the generational change is always occurring. Because reproduction is imperfect there is no way to stop it from happening.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 2:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 5:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 122 of 295 (447226)
01-08-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
01-08-2008 1:13 PM


My Transitional 2 Cents
ICANT writes:
My grandmother being a 100% mortal human being.
Me being a 100% spiritual being.
My father being a 50% human being and a 50% spiritual being would be a transitional.
I'm going to try and take your example and show how it reflects on what a scientific transitional would be like. This won't be exact, and I'm really trying to work with your terminology. But if you take this, and what everyone else is saying, I hope it will make some sense.
First Edit - Things don't change that fast.
Your example has a transition going from 0 -> 100% in 2 generations. This isn't observed as far as I know. Observations see things more like this:
Generation 00000 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.00% Spiritual
Generation 00001 - 099.99% Mortal, 000.01% Spiritual
Generation 00002 - 099.98% Mortal, 000.02% Spiritual
...
Generation 04323 - 056.77% Mortal, 043.23% Spiritual
Generation 04324 - 056.76% Mortal, 043.24% Spiritual
Generation 04325 - 056.75% Mortal, 043.25% Spiritual
...
Generation 09998 - 000.02% Mortal, 099.98% Spiritual
Generation 09999 - 000.01% Mortal, 099.99% Spiritual
Generation 10000 - 000.00% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
And "transitional" is every generation between the two ends (each and every 9,999 of them). Also, in your analogy, your father being 50% mortal human and 50% spiritual human is still a fully formed, fully functional "person". As is your grandmother, and you. As is every person in each generation I've provided (all 10,001 of them)
Second Edit - Things don't change that uniform.
Your example has a transition going from 0 -> 100% in uniform steps. The transitions of creatures aren't always done this strictly. Sometime's it's faster, sometime's it's slower, and it's not even always directly balanced (% Mortal + % Spiritual generally doesn't = 100%). Observations see things more like this:
Generation 00000 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.00% Spiritual
Generation 00001 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.02% Spiritual
Generation 00002 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.03% Spiritual
Generation 00003 - 099.99% Mortal, 000.04% Spiritual
Generation 00004 - 099.98% Mortal, 000.05% Spiritual
Generation 00005 - 099.93% Mortal, 000.05% Spiritual
Generation 00006 - 099.93% Mortal, 000.08% Spiritual
...
Generation 04323 - 054.38% Mortal, 052.23% Spiritual
Generation 04324 - 054.36% Mortal, 052.24% Spiritual
Generation 04325 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.24% Spiritual
Generation 04326 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.36% Spiritual
Generation 04327 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04328 - 054.32% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04329 - 054.31% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04330 - 054.26% Mortal, 052.39% Spiritual
...
Generation 09994 - 000.12% Mortal, 099.98% Spiritual
Generation 09995 - 000.08% Mortal, 099.98% Spiritual
Generation 09996 - 000.03% Mortal, 099.99% Spiritual
Generation 09997 - 000.02% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 09998 - 000.02% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 09999 - 000.01% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 10000 - 000.00% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Again, each generation is a fully functional, complete person, and a transitional.
Third Edit - Things don't "start" and "stop" changing, they just change as time goes on.
Your example has a transition going from 0 -> 100% But we never see this in any observations. When is a "fin" done for a fish? When is an "eye" complete? There generally isn't any beginning or any end. Observations see things more like this:
...
Generation-00004 - 100.04% Mortal,-000.01% Spiritual
Generation-00003 - 100.03% Mortal,-000.01% Spiritual
Generation-00002 - 100.01% Mortal, 000.00% Spiritual
Generation-00001 - 100.01% Mortal, 000.00% Spiritual
Generation 00000 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.00% Spiritual
Generation 00001 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.02% Spiritual
Generation 00002 - 100.00% Mortal, 000.03% Spiritual
Generation 00003 - 099.99% Mortal, 000.04% Spiritual
Generation 00004 - 099.98% Mortal, 000.05% Spiritual
Generation 00005 - 099.93% Mortal, 000.05% Spiritual
Generation 00006 - 099.93% Mortal, 000.08% Spiritual
...
Generation 04323 - 054.38% Mortal, 052.23% Spiritual
Generation 04324 - 054.36% Mortal, 052.24% Spiritual
Generation 04325 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.24% Spiritual
Generation 04326 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.36% Spiritual
Generation 04327 - 054.35% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04328 - 054.32% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04329 - 054.31% Mortal, 052.37% Spiritual
Generation 04330 - 054.26% Mortal, 052.39% Spiritual
...
Generation 09994 - 000.12% Mortal, 099.98% Spiritual
Generation 09995 - 000.08% Mortal, 099.98% Spiritual
Generation 09996 - 000.03% Mortal, 099.99% Spiritual
Generation 09997 - 000.02% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 09998 - 000.02% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 09999 - 000.01% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 10000 - 000.00% Mortal, 100.00% Spiritual
Generation 10001 --000.01% Mortal, 100.01% Spiritual
Generation 10002 --000.01% Mortal, 100.02% Spiritual
Generation 10003 --000.04% Mortal, 100.02% Spiritual
Generation 10004 --000.05% Mortal, 100.02% Spiritual
...
As you can see, the 00000 generation is simply a transitional as well. Along with the 10000 generation. This is what is meant when people say "every creature is a transitional".
There generally isn't really a point where we can say this is "100%" or "0%" anything. I'm sure you know the octopus has a better eye than us. And that we have a better eye than a mole. So, is our eye "80%"? 80% of what? What's 100% eye? What if 100% is something that may be evolved in the future? We don't even have a base-line to judge these things in percentages.
I hope this quick tweaking of your example can help show what is meant by a scientific transitional.
That is:
50% Mortal and 50% Spiritual is a transitional.
42% Mortal and 45% Spiritual is a transitional.
08% Mortal and 75% Spiritual is a transitional.
20% Mortal and 20% Spiritual is a transitional.
20% Reptile and 20% Bird is a transitional.
Other Things to consider:
-my choice of 10000 generations was simply to show that it's "lot's bigger than 2". It may just as easily be 1,000,000,000 or larger.
-some (a lot of?) evolution isn't new things coming and old things going, but just things being used differently than they were before (jaw-bones becoming ear-bones, for example).
-most evolution involves a lot of branching off. That is, Generation 04237 may have one offspring that is Generation 04238 on it's way to you (Generation 10000). But the same Generation 04237 may also have an offspring that is Generation 04238b that starts on it's way towards Generation 10000b that is 25% Mortal, 60% Spritual and, say, 15% Supernatural. Observation shows that this happens a lot. Even Generation 04238b's later Generation 07155b can split and start 07156c... which can also eventually split and so on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 6:55 PM Stile has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 123 of 295 (447238)
01-08-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
01-08-2008 1:38 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Percy,
There is never any step in the process of descent where the offspring is suddenly a different species.
If that is the case could you please explain the cambrian explosion so that Professor Chen would be able to understand it, Maybe I could understand it then.
Professor Chen aggued:
But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argued that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date show that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process.
According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of "the Cambrian Explosion," a geological moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.
Rather than Charles Darwin's familiar notion of survival of the fittest, Chen said he believes scientists should focus on the possibility that a unique harmony between forms of life allowed complex organisms to emerge. If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, the conventional forces of evolution, Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."
This is an quote from the Boston Globe. Found here, Boston Globe Article
Enjoy,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 1:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 4:24 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 125 by Coragyps, posted 01-08-2008 4:26 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 8:24 PM ICANT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 124 of 295 (447243)
01-08-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:11 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
If that is the case could you please explain the cambrian explosion so that Professor Chen would be able to understand it, Maybe I could understand it then.
Chen has no problem understanding the Cambrian explosion and in fact he is helping to rapidly fill in just those transitionals that were missing. He happens to be one of the major discoverers of the earlier life forms including pre-Cambrian bi-lateral critters.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:16 PM jar has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 125 of 295 (447244)
01-08-2008 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:11 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
a geological moment more than 500 million years ago
That "moment" was at least 20,000,000 years long, ICANT. And it now appears that it had another multi-million-year moment leading up to it in the Ediacaran.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 126 of 295 (447245)
01-08-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ringo
01-08-2008 2:56 PM


Re-Barrier
Hi Ringo,
I think I've been pretty clear throughout the thread. Big changes are from single-cell to Lucy or from Lucy to you. Specifically, what barrier prevents that?
Since I have not been able to find the step by step process from the single-cell to Lucy I am at a kinda loss to figure out what the barrier would be from Lucy to me.
You see I don't believe Lucy came from the single cell life form simply because it has never been proven to be a fact.
I do not believe Lucy is my ancestor because that has never been a proven fact either.
Now as far as my barrier I will use the words of Professor Chen,
quote:
Chen said, "then complex, highly evolved life, such as the human, has no reason to appear."
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 2:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:36 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 4:49 PM ICANT has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 127 of 295 (447248)
01-08-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:28 PM


Ancestors
do not believe Lucy is my ancestor because that has never been a proven fact either.
Then what was your ancestor at that time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:46 PM NosyNed has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 128 of 295 (447254)
01-08-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NosyNed
01-08-2008 4:36 PM


Re: Ancestors
Hi Ned,
Then what was your ancestor at that time?
Why do I have to have an ancestor at that time?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:36 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:58 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 129 of 295 (447255)
01-08-2008 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:28 PM


Re: Re-Barrier
ICANT writes:
Since I have not been able to find the step by step process from the single-cell to Lucy I am at a kinda loss to figure out what the barrier would be from Lucy to me.
So what? You can't pinpoint every step in the walk from coast to coast either.
The whole point of this exchange has been: what leads you to conclude that it couldn't be done? We've established that some walks are impossible - e.g. to the moon - and we've established that some walks are possible - e.g. to the corner store. Your conclusion is not reasonable unless you can point to the barrier that prevents you from walking coast to coast.
You see I don't believe Lucy came from the single cell life form simply because it has never been proven to be a fact.
There was a time when it had never been "proven to be a fact" that one could walk from coast to coast. Did Lewis and Clark assume some phantom impenetrable barrier? Or did they decide that they'd believe in the barrier when they saw it?
Show me the barrier to cross-country walks and I'll believe in it. Show me the barrier to evolution and I'll believe in it.
Now as far as my barrier I will use the words of Professor Chen....
All you're doing is quoting (or quote-mining) Professor Chen's (supposed) claim that there is a barrier. Until the barrier is shown - specifically - Professor Chen's claim is no more valid than yours.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 4:58 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:30 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 295 (447262)
01-08-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
01-08-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Re-Barrier
All you're doing is quoting (or quote-mining) Professor Chen's (supposed) claim that there is a barrier. Until the barrier is shown - specifically - Professor Chen's claim is no more valid than yours.
And, of course, Chen does not think there is any barrier. He pointed out, made a prediction, that we would find the transitionals to the Cambrian life forms and guess what, we did. In fact he has been one of the folk finding quite a few of them and they are exactly as predicted.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 4:49 PM ringo has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 295 (447263)
01-08-2008 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:46 PM


Re: Ancestors
Why do I have to have an ancestor at that time?
Do you have parents?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 8:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 132 of 295 (447265)
01-08-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
01-08-2008 3:00 PM


Re-Transition
Hi Ringo,
Of course not. Nobody has suggested that.
Then you are not talking about transition you are talking about evolution but the word in question about the child was transmutation.
These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.
Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.
I agree with these and that this is evolution in progress.
But in Message 114 Message 114 You said:
So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like.
implying transmutation and transition are the same thing. They are not. Definition for transmutation-Message 112
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 3:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 5:15 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 133 of 295 (447267)
01-08-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
01-08-2008 3:08 PM


Hi Percy,
That every generation is different from the previous generation is just a simple observation, and the generational change is always occurring. Because reproduction is imperfect there is no way to stop it from happening.
OK let me get this clear. Me having green eyes and my one of my sons having brown eyes is a transition. My second son has blue eyes so that is a transition. My first son has a son that has green eyes and that is a transition. My first son's son my grandson has a son that has brown eyes and that is a transition.
If this is what you guys are calling a transition I will have to agree that it is a transition although I thought it was a variation within the family.
Have fun,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 3:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2008 5:20 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 01-08-2008 8:35 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 295 (447268)
01-08-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Re-Transition
ICANT writes:
You said:
quote:
So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like.
implying transmutation and transition are the same thing. They are not.
According to Dictionary.com:
quote:
trans·mute
-verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -mut·ed, -mut·ing. to change from one nature, substance, form, or condition into another; transform.
[Origin: 1400-50; late ME < L trnsmtre to shift, equiv. to trns- trans- + mtre to change.]

A transmutation is a change - not necessarily the magical ape-to-man-right-before-your-eyes change that you're demanding to see, just a change. There is nothing in the word to suggest it can't refer to change from one generation to the next - and I think I've been very clear that we are only talking about changes from one generation to the next.
Why are you still avoiding the simple question? What prevents the changes from accumulating?

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 4:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 8:43 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 135 of 295 (447269)
01-08-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
01-08-2008 5:10 PM


I thought it was a variation within the family.
Evolution is just variation within a family. It's just as the tree grows we start to create new family names for ease of reference. We are all part of the human family, but we are also part of the primate family and all primates are part of the mammal family etc etc.
Thus, evolution of primates is just variation within the primate family.
Anybody who has offspring is a transitional between their parents and their offspring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 5:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 8:54 PM Modulous 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