Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 271 of 402 (474374)
07-08-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:45 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
Greetings
We finally agree that ToE is a theory, not a fact.
You have made a very common error.
THEORY has 2 meanings
It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".
In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".
But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.
Theories EXPLAIN facts
Theories explain the facts we observe :
Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.
Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.
Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.
Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.
the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation
The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.
Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.
Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.
And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.
And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.
Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"
as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)
when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)
Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.
EVOLUTION = FACT & THEORY
In short -
Evolution is a FACT.
We observe evolution.
And,
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION, or model, for the observed facts of evolution.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:45 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 3:54 PM Kapyong has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 272 of 402 (474378)
07-08-2008 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 12:50 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:
OK, show me the evolutionary model "that has been proven" to a high degree of accuracy from start-to-finish that produces at least one fully developed creature species that then evolves into all the other fully developed creature species.
So you're saying the only evidence you'll accept is a videotape of every single creature that has ever lived so that you can have a grade-school version of a family tree?
If this isn't what you mean, then what part of the fossil record is not up to snuff? What part of the experiment I gave you is insufficient? What part of the numerous speciation events we have directly witnessed is insufficient?
Be specific. You seem to be saying that 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that allows us to say that 1 + 1 = 2.
You have already been shown the money. It is now your job to provide specific details as to why it isn't good enough. You simply asserting that it isn't doesn't cut it. For example, your only complaint against the E. coli experiment was that a human being didn't come out at the end.
But evolution doesn't claim that a human being comes out at the end. Therefore, why are you complaining about it? All you asked was for an example of the evolutionary model from start to finish. You were given precisely that. You then moved the goalposts and now are asking about where humans came from.
You've been given that evidence.
So where are you going to move the goalposts now?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 12:50 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 273 of 402 (474379)
07-08-2008 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 1:23 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
The same way man creates and engineers anything man does.
Humans use evolution. The Boeing 777, for example, wasn't designed. It was literally evolved.
So if human beings can use evolution, why can't god? If we use it, why doesn't god?
quote:
the perfect eliptical distance for the creation of seasons
Seasons are not created by the elliptical path of the earth. What does that say for your god that the very thing that you claim god did to create the seasons doesn't actually create them?
quote:
"Kind" simply means God created each creature species after their own species.
We have seen speciation occur right in front of our eyes. Therefore, your "kind" is no barrier.
quote:
The "spark of life" is a term used by some to explain how life either came to this earth to begin the evolutionary life process, or somehow self-started itself on the earth.
Evolution has nothing to say about this, so why bring it up?
quote:
PS - I noticed you did'nt ask why?
Science doesn't ask why. That's a question for philosophy.
Science can tell you a lot about an acoustic wave form: The amplitude, the frequency, the beat pattern, the energy contained, how far it will propagate within various media, etc.
What it cannot tell you is if it is music.
And it doesn't even try.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 1:23 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:07 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 274 of 402 (474380)
07-08-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 1:35 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
I'm afraid if you are not convinced by the truth of Psalms 19:1, then whatever else I can say would be futile.
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Indeed it does. It is by studying the world we live in that we have come to the conclusion that the diversity of life we see on this planet is the result of evolution, not "intelligent design."
"The rocks and stones themselves will start to sing."
Why do you refuse to listen?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 1:35 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:12 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 275 of 402 (474381)
07-08-2008 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 1:46 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Big difference between proving fission in the 1930's and proving evolution has occurred over billion of years.
Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? What part of the molecular phylogenetic tree are you having trouble with?
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 1:46 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 276 of 402 (474382)
07-08-2008 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by LucyTheApe
07-07-2008 1:47 PM


LucyTheApe writes:
quote:
The video makes the claim that the viral DNA can attach itself "randomly" anywhere on the host DNA. And then perpetuates this throughout. Surely the DNA can only attach where the chemistry is right for it to do so.
Indeed. But surely you aren't saying that there is only one place it could attach, are you?
Since it could attach equally likely at a multitude of sites, why is it that so many species all share the exact same location? If there were no common descent, then we should not see identical locations. Instead, we should see very different locations.
It's the same thing with the GLO pseudo-gene. Humans and other great apes are incapable of synthesizing our own vitamin C due to the identical genetic error in our GLO gene that stops the process of conversion of glucose into ascorbic acid. It's a multi-step process and ours is broken in the middle.
Most other mammals, on the other hand, don't have a broken GLO and can synthesize vitamin C on their own.
Except hamsters.
But the place in the hamster genome where the vitamin C synthesis process is broken is different than where it is in humans.
Why would god do this? Evolution, through common descent, explains this situation quite easily. The common ancestor of humans and hamsters was an organism that was neither human nor hamster and had a functional ascorbic acid sythnesis process. After it split into the paths that would lead to humans and hamsters, that genetic process broke independently of each other and that is why they are broken in different ways.
The common ancestor of humans and other great apes was an organism that was neither human nor any other type of great ape and yet it did not have a functional ascorbic acid synthesis process. Thus, when it split into the paths that would lead to humans and the other great apes, that broken genetic process was inherited by all the child species and that is why they are broken identically.
What motivation could god possibly have for breaking the ascorbic acid synthesis process identically for one group of organisms but in a completely different way for others? Why have the difference be between organisms that are genetically distant rather than between organisms that are genetically close?
quote:
Just because the Creator made all kinds with their seed doesn't mean that He can't provide them with the ability to fight infection.
But if one can, they all can. That was the point behind growing the lawn from a single ancestor. If there is no evolution, then they all have identical "adaptation" capabilities so the lawn lives or dies as a single unit. If there is no evolution, then it is impossible for some of them to behave one way and others to behave another way.
Since they do behave differently, the assumption that there is no evolution is necessarily shown to be false.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-07-2008 1:47 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 277 of 402 (474384)
07-08-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 3:22 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Do you have any proven verifiable evidence that the speculations of the evloutionary model actually occurs, producing species after species, starting from single cells to fully developed creatures?
What part of the fossil record, the molecular phylogenetic tree, and the direct observation of speciation events is insufficient?
Be specific.
quote:
If not, then it is you not I that doesn't know what science really is.
Since we do, since it has been shown to you, and since you haven't given a single specific reason as to why it isn't good enough, what does that say about your knowledge of what science is?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 3:22 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 278 of 402 (474386)
07-08-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:33 PM


John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:
so the evolutionary model has been proven in a laboratory from start-to-finish to a high degree of accuracy, where single cell creatures have been developed into fully developed creature/species, able to reproduce themselves and mutate to other species?
Yes. It's called "speciation" and we've seen it time and time again. Go to PubMed and look up the papers for yourself.
Remember the experiment I described for you? It gave you a piece of homework to do: Look up the studies on the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon oligimers. New species.
It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
Oh, by the way: We can even create what you demand from scratch: Self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.
Why would you have us deny what we can see directly with our own eyes.
quote:
Only on the National Geographic TV channel have I seen this done, not proven in a laboratory over time.
I'm confused. Where did you think the National Geographic got their evidence? They got it from a lab, of course. So if you saw it on NGTV, then there's a whole lot you didn't see.
Which begs the question: When was the last time you were in a biology lab?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:33 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 279 of 402 (474387)
07-08-2008 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 5:06 PM


John 10:10 writes:
quote:
Most evolutionists these days consider it proven fact, not theory.
Incorrect. Most scientists these days consider it to be both proven face AND a theory.
You do understand why, yes? I've explained it over and over again: You don't have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. That's why it's called the theory OF evolution: You start with the observed fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then develop a theory to explain how it happens (mutation and selection).
quote:
"Very valuable scientists" who work in the field of biology deal with theories that result in proven facts, not in theories that can never be proven.
Dobzhansky put it best:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Evolution is the fundamental theorem of biology. You can't really do biology without eventually coming back to it. So since they all agree that evolution is where it's at, then you're going to have to explain why they're all wrong.
Do it and they'll give you the Nobel Prize. We eagerly await your journal article showing it.
And for the umpteenth time: Theories don't generate facts. It's the other way around: Facts generate theories.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 5:06 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by dwise1, posted 07-08-2008 10:42 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 280 of 402 (474389)
07-08-2008 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
07-07-2008 10:00 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I was talking about a complete fossil record of 66 million years with no missing gaps.
Now if you know of some others out there I would love to read about them.
Hie thee to the science library and look them up. It is not something you can do in less than an hour.
But, you already know of another one: The Horse fossil record is also complete and runs about 54MY. In the process, the creature grew huge in size, went through various changes to the number of ribs it had (both increasing and decreasing), changing the toes, the teeth, etc.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ICANT, posted 07-08-2008 2:01 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 281 of 402 (474390)
07-08-2008 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
07-07-2008 10:17 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
My question is if they started out 500 million years ago as foraminifera and they are still foraminifera, Why could not everything else have started at a point in the past and continued until today?
Because "Foraminifera" is a phylum. It seems you do not know what that means. A phylum is extremely high up the taxonomic tree. It only describes extremely general characteristics. For example, humans are an example of the phylum "Chordata."
Every animal that has a backbone is a member of "Chordata." Are you about to say that a human is the same as a fish? Well, as far as "Chordata" is concerned, yes. They both have backbones. Therefore, they're "just Chordata."
The point is that evolution doesn't happen that far up the taxonomic ladder, per se. In the classic example of the "tree of evolution," it happens at the tips, not the trunk.
Now, this isn't to say that you can't develop new phyla, but it is extremely difficult to do so and you don't do it at the phylum level but rather at the species level. A single species will split off a daughter species which will split off a daughter species and so on so that eventually, if Species A is considered "Genus A," then Species X will be considered "Genus B" because it is different enough from Species A that it really doesn't share the traits that define "Genus A." Thus, even though what happened was a "speciation event," it was significant enough to create a new Genus.
This process can keep happening such that eventually, the new species is so different from what we started with that even a new Genus isn't sufficient to describe just how different it is. In that case, we need a new Family.
Phylum is just under Kingdom. If you're going to create a new phylum, you're going to have to have a hugely radical change in body plan. Given the explosion of life on this planet, body plans are highly adapted to their niches and it would require a huge environmental change to come up with a new one since we would have to crawl quite far up the taxonomic tree in order to create a new phylum.
quote:
The foraminifera did.
And so did all the other phyla.
The question is: What were you expecting? Evolution actually says that the creation of a new phylum should be very rare. That's exactly what you saw.
So what's the problem?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 07-07-2008 10:17 PM ICANT has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 282 of 402 (474407)
07-08-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 1:46 PM


Re: Observations
Hi, John 10:10.
John 10:10 writes:
Big difference between proving fission in the 1930's and proving evolution has occurred over billion of years.
And, if you had read the rest of my earlier posts (here and here), you would notice that I (with the help of Rrhain and Bluegenes) provided evidence showing that this is not the case. In order to make a debate out of this, you now have to provide evidence to show that there is a difference between proving fission and proving evolution, or at least show how my evidence is faulty. Yet, all you did was repeat your previous assertion, which is not only a bad argument that does not agree with any of the evidence so far presented, but is also a violation of Forum Guideline #4.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 1:46 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:31 PM Blue Jay has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 283 of 402 (474408)
07-08-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Rrhain
07-08-2008 3:35 AM


Dobzhansky put it best:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
A bit more completely, in order to better show the importance of theory (Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129; reprinted at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml):
quote:
Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole.
Illustrating that further is my summary of Dr. Eugenie Scott sharing her teaching experience in a speech (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#SCOTT):
quote:
She revealed that many colleges, especially those in the "Bible Belt", do not teach evolution to their biology students, so many degreed biologists out there have had no training in evolution. Then she related her own experiences teaching the lower-division physical anthropology course, in which she definitely did cover evolution. Every semester, a few biology seniors would enroll in her class looking for an easy A. In every such case, at some point in the semester, she would see the "ah-ha!" light suddenly come on in those students' heads as they said to themselves, "So that's why ..." Dr. Scott offered this as living confirmation of Dobzhansky's famous quote, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Rrhain, posted 07-08-2008 3:35 AM Rrhain has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 284 of 402 (474410)
07-08-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 3:22 PM


Re: John You Have Convinced Me
If not, then it is you not I that doesn't know what science really is.
Here's a simple yes-or-no question for you. Please answer it yes or no, rather than with windy creationist rhetoric.
THose 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists I quoted --- do they know what "true science" is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 3:22 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 285 of 402 (474411)
07-08-2008 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by John 10:10
07-07-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Observations
Those who believe and know our creator God get to explain what "intelligent design" is, not evolutionists. It is your choice to disbelieve if you so choose, but not your right to define what "intelligent design" is.
Saying that it is deception is not defining it, it's describing it.
If we followed the rule you wish to apply, I couldn't call flat-Earthery "bunkum", because only flat-Earthers get to decide if it's bunkum.
Intelligent design is simply the belief/knowledge that our creator God, before anything was created, proceeded to intelligently design the universe and all life therein from the start to the finish.
So ... does it not rule out evolution? Only that definition would include a deity who incorporated evolution, the Big Bang, et cetera into his plan: in other words a real God who made the universe we actually live in.
It is you who has been blinded by the god (Satan) of this world as to the truth of who Almighty God is.
And yet it is you who keeps typing demonstrable falsehoods, and we who keep supplying facts.
If a house is divided against itself, how can it stand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by John 10:10, posted 07-07-2008 4:24 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by John 10:10, posted 07-08-2008 4:43 PM Dr Adequate 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