|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,765 Year: 4,022/9,624 Month: 893/974 Week: 220/286 Day: 27/109 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Uh huh.....care to detail one thing he posted that rebutts any of my points?
You can't do it because he said nothing basically but garbage, not one single factual response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
randman writes: Imo, a lack of evidence or contradictory evidence is a weakness of the theory in the context here. Okay, fine. But I was under the impression that this S&W approach was different from ID. Does it bring anything to the table that ID didn't already have? If it doesn't, it is just ID with a new name. And ID has been Refuted A Thousand Times in its entirety. At any rate, I'm still interested in any theoretical weaknesses in ToE that you can come up with. I'm tired of the old "lack of evidence" stuff: I was hoping creos actually had come up with something new we could debate about.
randman writes: In terms of what is illegal, it must strike you as well as it does me to hear that a mere scientific idea is "illegal." It would strike me as odd to hear that a scientific idea is "illegal," yes. However, I have not yet heard such a thing. Edited by Bluejay, : I changed "Id" to "ID": I don't want to bring Freud into this Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Uh huh.....care to detail one thing he posted that rebutts any of my points? You can't do it because he said nothing basically but garbage, not one single factual response.
Let me get this straight; you are stating that Ichneumon's rebuttals in post #113 are "garbage, not one single factual response" -- is this what you are claiming? Content hidden. Also, please use the standard quoting form, not the bright green boxes. No replies to this message. - Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
You and Ichneumon seem to be exchanging real content free messages. BOTH OF YOU stop it.
Adminnemooseus Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Code error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Note erased my post after it was posted once I saw admin's comment not to respond.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Uh huh.....so outlawing ideas as illegal seems fine with you, eh?
This is relevant for this thread because it's apparent one side wants to teach students to think critically of evolution by presenting the arguments against it, and another side wants that to be illegal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13032 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
There's a thread for lodging complaints: Windsor castle. Please don't try to handle moderation issues yourself.
It's not like it's rocket science identifying the participant common to threads that degenerate into content-free exchanges of personal criticisms. Just so there's no ambiguity, let me state once again that EvC Forum no longer reverses permanent suspensions. Permanent suspensions are truly permanent now. I suggested to the other moderators that we extend considerable leeway to Randman on this incarnation of his return, since the consequences are so severe. My rough estimate is that the leeway is about half used up so far. Randman's MO is to rise to almost any bait, no matter how subtle, and he'll even be baited by seemingly innocuous passages. Those interested in keeping Randman around as a foil, because in my judgement he makes better and stronger arguments for the creationist position than any other creationist member I can think of, should try to cut him a break and keep things non-controversial in the extreme, because he has no self-control that I can tell. Please, no replies. Edited by Admin, : Add last line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
randman, I have two questions for you (assuming that they are new to this thread):
1. Are you aware that at the core Darwin’s evo theory there is a principle discovered by Thomas Malthus: Populations naturally grow geometrically, while their food supplies grow arithmetically. This means that, eventually, a population will produce more individuals than can be sustained by its food supply. When the necessary winnowing occurs, who do you suppose will be eliminated first? On Malthus’ principle of population alone, you know that the weak ones will be eliminated first. The rest of evo theory is just an explanation of how that process unfolds. 2. Have you ever considered that maybe Darwin’s evo theory is a Creation-friendly explanation of how God did it ” how He managed to make the process work? Newton discovered the law of gravitation, believing that it explained how God organized the physical world. Why couldn’t Darwin have done the same thing for the biological world? If you cared to look at evo theory this way, you might see that:
quote:Why couldn't you reconcile the whole dispute this way? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4925 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Populations naturally grow geometrically, while their food supplies grow arithmetically. This means that, eventually, a population will produce more individuals than can be sustained by its food supply. When the necessary winnowing occurs, who do you suppose will be eliminated first? On Malthus’ principle of population alone, you know that the weak ones will be eliminated first. The rest of evo theory is just an explanation of how that process unfolds.
That's a nice simple explanation. Problem is that it is too simple and doesn't address the complexity of the process sufficiently, specifically how winnowing reduces genetic diversity and several other things such as populations don't actually or necessarily grow consistently. There are a lot of factors, including the fact that the "weak" is a rather vague term as what constitutes weakness can change. It's a violatile situation.
Have you ever considered that maybe Darwin’s evo theory is a Creation-friendly explanation of how God did it ” how He managed to make the process work? I have. I used to think that was likely but the more I looked into the facts of Darwinism and the more I continue to look into it, the more convinced I am it is a sham.....not to be harsh, but I don't see it as factually supported. So my dispute is not religioiusly based except the more I look into the way evolution has been accepted and taught, I think there are anti-religious motives coloring the process, at least for many leading evos, not all that espouse it though. It just doesn't fit the data, nor explain it. Maybe some other evo theory will, but not NeoDarwinism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
randman writes:
This must be a personal thing for you, which is certainly OK with me. For me, the data fit and they explain quite a bit. In fact, there is so must empirical evidence for ND that you'd have to be blind or worse not to see it. But if you don't choose to see it, that's OK with me. It just doesn't fit the data, nor explain it. Maybe some other evo theory will, but not NeoDarwinism. Are you sure you're not looking for some kind of binding "life force"”elan vital, or something? If you are then it's good to know that none has ever been detected. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5789 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
It seems as though half of the posts that I have made on this website have been attempts to define words.
Now we have the question, what is the definition of a “weakness?” I do not know how the “strengths and weaknesses” people would define this word. I have looked on their website for a definition and did not find one listed. So, I will attempt to provide a definition. Weakness: Any information or evidence regarding a hypothesis or theory that could lead someone to reach a different conclusion about that hypothesis or theory if that information or evidence was known. Here are a few examples: Scientific evidence that directly contradicts a theory. (Actually if this is the case then the theory is falsified and should not be taught in the first place). Scientific evidence that could be correctly interpreted in more than one way that could falsify a theory if interpreted differently. Assumptions relating to unanswered questions that are used as a basis for a hypothesis or theory which if answered differently could falsify the hypothesis or theory. (i.e. Assumptions about the composition of the environment billions of years ago. Oxidizing vs Reducing). "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Firstly I think you should stick to the areas that evolutionary theory actually claims to have the best scientific explanation for.
Abiogenesis is recognised as an area of much research and little conclusion. Is this a weakness? Not in scientific terms where ignorance is infintely preferable to unsubstantiated falsehood (if any text books suggest abiogenesis is proven fact then I would agree that they should revoke this assertion). In the remainder of this thread stick to areas of established evolutionary theory and explain why they are, or on the basis of evidence may be, wrong. It is my view that, like any scientific theory, there are weaknesses in the detail of evolutionary theory. That is why research into these subjects exists!! However unlike most scientific theories any criticism of any aspect of evolutionary theory is pounced upon as a plus for the inherently undemonstrable and non-scientific conclusions of creationism. Conclusions that have no physical validity. Conclusions that explain everything and nothing. Conclusions that make no predictions and which are inherently scientifically untestable. Conclusions that exist as a result of philosophical bias alone. Because of this the usual high regard for dissent that is encouraged in science is much more strongly resisted in the field of evolutionary biology. In my limited, non-expert and very probably wrong, view the creationist position is potentially holding back advancement in the field of evolutionary biology by suppressing constructive skepticism and healthy debate. All theories have weaknesses. The weakness of the creationist argument is however the cause of possible and potential weaknesses in evolutionary theory not being explored to the extent that they would be in less contentious areas of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wumpini Member (Idle past 5789 days) Posts: 229 From: Ghana West Africa Joined: |
Hi Nosy Ned,
I am only going to deal with your orgin of life arguments at the present time.
First, biological evolution, which is what we are talking about, requires, by definition, actually biology. We are dealing with what is included in high school biology textbooks. It may not fall under your definition of biology, but that does not keep authors of textbooks from including it as part of the study of evolution. See msg 95.
So the entire topic is a side issue in a biology class. It is, of course, an interesting and difficult area of research. The point of the matter is that the orgin of life is part of biology class, and is included in those textbooks.
There is, in fact, good evidence that the early atmosphere was pretty much oxygen free. This is contrary to fact. Could you show me some of this “good evidence?”
Wumpini writes: There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
NosyNed writes: A word of advice: anytime that the word "information" is used by these folks make sure that a good operational definition is supplied. The statement is obviously false. Are you saying that this statement is obviously false because they used the word information? "There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
}We are dealing with what is included in high school biology textbooks. It may not fall under your definition of biology, but that does not keep authors of textbooks from including it as part of the study of evolution. See msg 95.{qsWe are dealing with what is included in high school biology textbooks. It may not fall under your definition of biology, but that does not keep authors of textbooks from including it as part of the study of evolution. See msg 95.
The point of the matter is that the orgin of life is part of biology class, and is included in those textbooks.[/qs] How things are grouped for teaching purposes doesn't mean that the basic science is as deeply intertangled. Of course, there is sometimes some chemistry taught at well. A bit of understanding of the chemistry of the genetics is helpful too. The entirety of evolutionary theory and the evolutionary history of life on earth can be taught without either the origin issue or the chemistry underlying it all. However, it doesn't hurt to surround the teaching of biology with other things. Please show how God-did-it as an explanation of the origin of life makes any difference whatsoever to evolutionary biology.
There is, in fact, good evidence that the early atmosphere was pretty much oxygen free. This is contrary to fact. Could you show me some of this “good evidence? The evidence consists of showing that oxygen formed compounds don't show up until something over 2 billion years after the origin of the planet and that older rocks have compounds that don't last in an oxygen rich atmosphere. One source: CB035.1: Oxygen for early earth There is however some reason to be unsure of this:Geotimes - November 2006 - Airing out an early atmosphere There may have been free oxygen around 1 billion years early (but there may not have been either). In addition, todays atmospheric oxygen is in a dynamic balance with chemistry (rock weathering etc>) that tends to remove it. You need plants to supply what we have. Another note:
quote: From:Just a moment... There are other arguments that suggest that the oxygen levels may have been above 1.5% of current many 100's of millions of years before the 2.5 Gyr mark. As these are clarified over time it means that a reducing atmosphere environment for the origin of life time may have to be reconsidered. In which case, the way in which life formed may have to be reconsidered. Just how will this bring God into the equation? And, again, exactly what effect would that have on the biological evolution model.
Are you saying that this statement is obviously false because they used the word information? Information as defined in the only solid operational definition I know about can be increased by random processes. However, since evolution has some very NON-random processes in it the statement is false anyway. The third thing hidden in my answer is that when you ask these folks to define information and you use their definitions you either get an increase in information through some evolutionary process or you get a logical contradiction. It is amazing how much disinformation can be crammed into so few words. All you have here is a possible, maybe, might be bit of an issue about the chemistry of the early atmosphere. How much time do you want to spend on this in class? In the few biology texts I've seen the idea that origin of life questions are still partially speculative is stated. What more do you want? What difference, exactly, does it make? In a well taught science class the students should be made aware that we don't know everything. If the religious zealots want to use that as an argument for their god then they are simply using a GOTG (god-of-the-gaps) argument. Please refer to theologians and to history for why that is a very bad idea. Edited by NosyNed, : fix some oopses
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5703 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
Wumpini:
Focusing on one particular topic is my preference. In fact, that should ideally be the purpose of individual threads. So in favor of shifting to a particular point of contention, I'd say it does sound like a good idea to focus on the issue you'd prefer (though I'm a bit miffed that the discussion has strayed so far from the original post). I apologize in advance for the megapost, but to be fair it's a fair return on your investment. . . . quote: For evolutionary biologists, "evolution" refers specifically to the change in a biological population ("biological" = creatures made of cells, derived from Cell Theory) due to genetic changes. If there are no genes (such as with biological chemicals) biologists aren't talking about evolution. The real boundary line in this matter would be viruses. Most wouldn't consider viruses to be a form of life because of their acellular, parasitic nature. However, since viruses do have genes they can be considered to "evolve." Most biologists would really say this is the outer edge of the science of "Evolutionary Biology." Again, because evolution is (primarily) a genetic field, pre-genetic precursors fall more into the field of biochemistry. I agree that evolution and abiogenesis are both important fields for biology in general, refuting one doesn't refute the other. Just because we don't have a clear picture of abiogenesis doesn't mean we don't have a clear picture of evolution. This sort of argument is a guilt by association argument.. . . quote: Oh examples are unnecessary. I'm quite sure that there is at least some mention of abiogenesis in science textbooks. It's quite common to see this sort of thing in textbooks that address general fields. For example, a textbook on world history will often start off with the creation myths of a particular society. On a chapter titled "Japanese History," for example, I've seen prologues start off with the story of how the male and female gods were said to have made the island of Japan. Looking at the examples you provided, this seems to be something similar, since no more than two or three pages appear to be devoted to abiogenesis. It's a sad fact that textbooks which deal with a general view of a subject tend to lack rigor and specifics, but this shouldn't reflect the science as a whole. It's also important to note that in textbooks (especially general-topic ones) chapters tend to merge things that have a similar topic, even if the scientific details are wholly unrelated. While evolution and abiogenesis are similar topicwise (the origin and development of life), the details differ entirely (a matter of genetics and development versus chemistry and biochemistry). Again, remember that the chemical details of life's origins are unrelated to the biological developments that occur when existing life is there. This is much like how the agricultural details of farming are unrelated to culinary excercise when the ingredients are already there. Bobby flay may not know how to grow the perfect tomato, but this ignorance doesn't mean his knowledge as a chef is deficient.. . . quote: There are certainly instances of point mutations that cause large changes to a protein's structure and function. However, these errors tend to be quite a bit rarer than neutral mutations. This is due to several reasons: 1. The genetic code is redundant, and in many instances (perhaps one third to two thirds of the time, I don't feel like crunching the numbers right now), a point mutation won't change the resulting amino acid sequence at all.2. Much of the protein fold isn't determined by the specific identity of the amino acids, but rather by how polar or nonpolar they are. Thus, a sequence that says "MFPST" would most likely have the same structure and fuction as a sequence "FFPYT" (both have a +++-- pattern, where + is nonpolar and - is polar). This second point is particularly significant, since specific proteins are very similar across species in shape and function, but often have quite a few differences in amino acid sequence. For example, if you replaced all the hemoglobin of a rabbit with all the hemoglobin of a human with genetics, the rabbit wouldn't really suffer any strange effects. They did this recently with the Apo-AIM protein in rabbits, intriguingly enough. No ill effects. But yes, single-point genetic changes CAN influence protein shape and function, for two main reasons that I can think of right now: 1. If a polar amino acid is switched out with a nonpolar one in a critical region. (such as in Sickle Cell Anemia)2. If an amino acid with a unique function (like glycine or cysteine) is replaced, but these are only 2 amino acids out of 20. (such as in the Apo-AIM mutation which actually improved protein efficiency) quote: The rest of your post seems to be concerned with whether abiogenesis is being taught in schools, and you point out that if it is taught, the weaknesses of the hypotheses should be taught as well. I agree. In fact, I'm not sure we should teach abiogenesis in high schools at all, personally. At best it should be given glossed over. High school is for teaching fundamentals that are very well-established. College is where you learn about hypotheses which are under review. Until a solid theory of abiogenesis is developed, I think high schools should instead be focusing on the more robust and well-proven facts and the theory of evolution. If students want to hash out the details of abiogenesis, they can do that in college. I'm a little annoyed that the textbooks you listed do have sections on abiogenesis, but such is the nature of introductory sections of textbook chapters. It's not a problem unique to biology textbooks. Edited by BeagleBob, : Added a few details on the genetic mutations part, corrected last paragraph of post.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024