Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 136 of 295 (447274)
01-08-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by JRTjr
01-06-2008 3:32 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
quote:
This is the gist of my point. My point being “”fully formed’ creatures, by definition, are not transitional forms”.
But your point is wrong.
Your definition is creationist preaching, it has no basis in reality.
You make a very common creationist mistake - you think there are TWO completely different kind of creatures :
1. "Fully formed" species
2. Transitional species - which are somehow not "fully formed"
This is completely incorrect.
(And it confirms that you have never studied evolution at all, instead you have been preached to by creationists. I suggest you study evolution before making more false statments.)
In reality - there is ONE kind of creature :
1. fully formed transitional species
That's right -
All species are fully formed.
All species are transitional. (*)
(* Except for those creatures which left no descendents at all.)
There is no such thing as species not "fully formed" - it is an invalid concept with no basis in reality.
Your parents are transitional between your grandparents and you.
You are transitional between your parents and your children (when/if you have children.)
You are transitional.
Are you "partially formed" ?
Of course not - every creature is fully formed,
and every creatures is transitional.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by JRTjr, posted 01-06-2008 3:32 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 137 of 295 (447279)
01-08-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
01-08-2008 1:27 AM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
There we have it in a nut-shell :
Ringo (as she* so often does) asked just the right question -
what is the barrier between a Lucy-like creature evolving into us?
Not only does ICANT fail to identify a barrier, he can't even accept a POSSIBLE connection between Lucy and us. ICANT struggled to even grasp the simple concept Ringo was addressing. Now ICANT retreats to the silly old canard about demanding proof before even CONSIDERING the idea of a conection.
The location of the BARRIER could not be made more plain :
It's in the MINDS of creationists.
Iasion
(* Ringo - your icon is so distinctive, I imagine you as a smart young lady in a cowboy hat. Feel free to let me think that, or not :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 1:27 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 138 of 295 (447287)
01-08-2008 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Stile
01-08-2008 3:45 PM


Re: My Transitional 2 Cents
Hi Stile,
Hardly because there is no way I could be 1% to 99% a Spiritual being I would have to be 100% human all of me, or I would have to be 100% Spiritual being, as I understand it there is no inbetween.
I hope this quick tweaking of your example can help show what is meant by a scientific transitional.
I think Percy made it plain what is considered a scientific transitional on this site. A change from generation to generation.
That simply means that there is nothing for Evolutionist and Creationist to discuss.
Evolutionist here are saying that there is just a progression from the single cell life form that appeared to where we are today and beyond. Doesn't matter whether you call it micro-evolution, macro-evolution, or transitional you are only talking about a progression from the single cell life form until today.
When all scientific facts point to sudden apperances of life forms.
My contention is that everything started suddenly.
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 122 by Stile, posted 01-08-2008 3:45 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 7:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 174 by Stile, posted 01-09-2008 9:14 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 139 of 295 (447294)
01-08-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by ICANT
01-08-2008 6:55 PM


Sudden Appearances
When all scientific facts point to sudden apperances of life forms.
Utterly wrong of course. You may think this because you know little about the scientific facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 6:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 9:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 140 of 295 (447298)
01-08-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by jar
01-08-2008 4:24 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi jar,
jar writes:
Chen has no problem understanding the Cambrian explosion
Chen says:
Conventional forces of evolution= The long process of generation to generation over long periods of time.
can't account for the: Speed=fast, breadth=magnitude, one-time nature=happened once.
of "the Cambrian Explosion,"
quote:
According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can't account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of "the Cambrian Explosion,"
  —Chen
Maybe I misunderstand this statement and it really means that Darwin was correct in his theory of evolution.

"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 124 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 4:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 01-08-2008 7:28 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 141 of 295 (447299)
01-08-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Coragyps
01-08-2008 4:26 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Hi Coragyps,
That "moment"
Those were not my words but Chen's. I have no Idea what he meant when he said moment.
I am glad you do.
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 125 by Coragyps, posted 01-08-2008 4:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 7:32 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 142 of 295 (447302)
01-08-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by ICANT
01-08-2008 7:16 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
Well, first that is not Chen speaking but some editor or reporter.
Second, as is so often the case, the news story is simply a bunch of quotemining, parts taken out of context.
Third, Chen was speaking of something everyone not dumber than a red brick would agree with, that we should also find the precursors of what is seen in the Cambrian.
Fourth, Chen was predicting that we would find those earlier transitionals, and in fact where we should find them.
Fifth, since the news article you quote, Chen as well as others HAVE found the precursors and guess what, they were where predicted and exhibit the traits predicted.
A short history of the search for PreCambrian fossils

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 9:20 PM jar has replied

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


(1)
Message 143 of 295 (447305)
01-08-2008 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
01-08-2008 4:49 PM


Re: Re-Barrier
Hi Ringo,
The whole point of this exchange has been: what leads you to conclude that it couldn't be done?
Simply the same thing that leads you to believe it can be done.
You want to believe it can be done and it doesn't make any difference what anyone says you are going to believe it can be done.
I don't want to believe it can be done and I know it has not been proven to have been done therefore I don't believe it can be done.
Prove it and I will believe it.
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 129 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 4:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 7:54 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 144 of 295 (447306)
01-08-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ICANT
01-08-2008 7:20 PM


A moment
Well, since none of the sources give what he actually wrote but only a newspaper article about what he wrote it is hard to be sure of what he said isn't it?
He either meant a moment of some tens of millions of years or he had it wrong. The "explosion" may have stretched for as long as 60 million years (which corresponds to the time back to the extinction of the dinosaurs) or as short as 20 some.
The creatures referred to in the Cambrian were about like current worms, shrimp and more worms (with a couple of bigger ones tossed in). We can't tell (because of lack of real source) what Chen was on about but the articles are hyping something that is not right.
How about something a bit solider?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:20 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 145 of 295 (447311)
01-08-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
01-08-2008 7:30 PM


Re: Re-Barrier
ICANT writes:
You want to believe it can be done and it doesn't make any difference what anyone says you are going to believe it can be done.
Not at all. I couldn't care less whether evolution is true or false, any more than I could care less whether it's possible to walk from British Columbia to Newfoundland. I don't "want to believe" anything.
All I'm asking (still) is for any kind of evidence that a walk to the corner store can't be extended to a walk across the country. All I'm asking is for any kind of evidence that the difference between you and your father can't be extended to the difference between you and Lucy.
If you can produce such evidence, I'll be only too glad to accept it.
Prove it and I will believe it.
You're the one who claims such an obstacle exists. The onus is on you to show that it does.
Edited by Ringo, : Spelkling.

“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 143 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 7:30 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 10:07 PM ringo has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 146 of 295 (447315)
01-08-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
01-08-2008 4:11 PM


Re: differentiating between the observation and the theory
ICANT writes:
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.
The Cambrian Explosion is a totally different subject. You requested an explanation of what was meant by transitional. Are you just yanking my chain?
--Percy

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 160 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 10:11 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 147 of 295 (447316)
01-08-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by NosyNed
01-08-2008 4:58 PM


Re: Ancestors
Hi Ned,
Do you have parents?
Sure.
But what does that have to do with me having parents millions of years ago?
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 131 by NosyNed, posted 01-08-2008 4:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 295 (447317)
01-08-2008 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by ICANT
01-08-2008 5:10 PM


ICANT writes:
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.
Inheritance of eye color is unrelated to imperfect reproduction, i.e., mutations. Like a copy machine set to the task of making copies of copies, the copies are never perfect, and you eventually get unintelligible copies. The imperfections accumulate. That's why genetic change in all species is inevitable, and why all species are in a state of transition.
The difference between evolution and a copy machine is that evolution includes selection so that the lucky "imperfections" spread throughout the population.
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.
No, variation is not a transition. Variation is just the variety of different traits possessed by a population. Selection operates upon variation, making it more likely that those with favorable traits will reproduce.
--Percy

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 161 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 10:14 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 149 of 295 (447321)
01-08-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
01-08-2008 5:15 PM


Re: Re-Transition
Hi Ringo,
A transmutation is a change
Do you take me and the readers of this site for stupid fools?
Ringo writes:
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.]

I don't remember using the word transmute for anything.
Your dictionary source says concerning transmutation
transmutation
-noun 1. the act or process of transmuting.
2. the fact or state of being transmuted.
3. change into another nature, substance, form, or condition.
4. Biology. the transformation of one species into another. Compare transformism.
5. Physics. any process in which a nuclide is transformed into a different nuclide, usually one of a different element.
6. Alchemy. the supposed conversion of base metals into metals of greater value, esp. into gold or silver.
And I am accused of not debating in good faith.

"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 134 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 5:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 01-08-2008 8:52 PM ICANT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 150 of 295 (447322)
01-08-2008 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ICANT
01-08-2008 8:43 PM


Re: Re-Transition
ICANT writes:
I don't remember using the word transmute for anything.
Oh come on. Transmute is the verb, transmutation is the noun. The meaning doesn't change. There is nothing in the definition of either word that requires the change to happen magically before your eyes.
And I am accused of not debating in good faith.
I don't think you've been accused of anything. I mentioned that you demonstrate an inability to debate in good faith. You continue to do so.
Still waiting for you to show us that barrier.

“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 149 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 8:43 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ICANT, posted 01-08-2008 10:19 PM ringo 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