Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8965 total)
57 online now:
DrJones*, jar (2 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,105 Year: 4,853/23,288 Month: 1,758/1,286 Week: 72/353 Day: 19/53 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 97 of 356 (464891)
04-30-2008 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 4:57 PM


We Do Consider the Implications
…would our conclusions be the same?

Um!… yes. Our conclusions have to match what is in evidence. And what is currently in evidence is… um, currently in evidence. So why would our conclusions be different if everything looks exactly the same as it does now? Which it does.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 4:57 PM Wumpini has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 103 of 356 (464922)
04-30-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wumpini
04-30-2008 10:44 PM


Almost Unanimously
I am not attempting to misconstrue what scientists believe. Since the study that is being quoted is the only evidence that I have found that relates to the beliefs of scientists, I am attempting to use the information to get an idea in my mind (however rough or accurate) of how scientists view the theory of evolution, including the mechanisms, and the origin of life.

And You are ignoring what scientists themselves are telling you. They are evidence.

An auto mechanic does not have to take a poll of his fellow mechanics to know that few of them are of the opinion that too much air pressure in the tires can cause the brake fluid to be forced out of the calipers.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wumpini, posted 04-30-2008 10:44 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM lyx2no has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 108 of 356 (464953)
05-01-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 12:23 AM


Re: How am I ignoring what scientists are telling me?
Double post.

Edited by lyx2no, : Double post.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 109 of 356 (464957)
05-01-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 12:23 AM


Re: How am I ignoring what scientists are telling me?
Because half of the people you are talking to right now are the very scientist you're claiming to try to understand. True, you don't know which are which, but if you weren't doing your darnedest to retain your vaunted "scientists are divided" stance you'd recognize that the testimony of folks like Bluejay is far superior to your single poll.

True, again, that the testimony here may be biased, but your own pollees were self selected. Bias is a wash. It's well known (a dodgy phrase if there ever was one) that holders of minority positions have a greater incentive to respond to polls. Check a few more polls and you'll find that 5% number dwindle to 1%. You'll also find that half of that 1% are from the planet Zod.

I'm a hardline atheist. I hold the opinion that God had as much to do with the forming of the Universe as did the duck doodled on the back of my note pad. (However, that position is tentative, and God is welcome to present himself for examination.)

Feel free to ignore my opinion. I myself couldn't get on in a day if I didn't ignore most of them.

Edited by lyx2no, : Vaulted to vaunted.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 12:23 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:28 PM lyx2no has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 123 of 356 (464992)
05-01-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Wumpini
05-01-2008 5:28 PM


Re: I appreciate your opinion
Polls would divide scientists as dog-cat owners too. An equally unimportant divide. The 5% divide is not unimportant, but that 5% has yet to put up any reasonable objection to evolution.

The “scientists are divide” junk (vaulted was a typo of vaunted: a bit of hyperbole on my part) is an oft used bit of Creationist propaganda. One of the oldest from what I’ve read. Your posts display several bits of Creationist propaganda. If they were self developed questions coming out of your own studies then they’d be good and interesting points. But as they’ve been asked and answered a thousand times and only kept alive through disingenuous Creos relying upon the innocence of the uninitiated these questions are a disservice to honest students of any ilk.

You seem an honest student, examine the questions feed you as well as the answers.

God has most clearly not presented himself for examination. He, I assume, would know what would be required by a legitimate examination. And, as it could only come about as his own volition, he would make sure we couldn’t mistake such a presentation for the background noise of primitive superstitions.

If I boosted to you that I am the world’s strongest man would you be satisfied that I was if the only proof I offered to support my claim was to show you my autobiography?

If God does exist he doesn’t want us to know.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Wumpini, posted 05-01-2008 5:28 PM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM lyx2no has responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 128 of 356 (465041)
05-02-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 6:04 AM


Re: Creationist propaganda
What am I doing?

Edited by lyx2no, : Another double post.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 129 of 356 (465042)
05-02-2008 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Wumpini
05-02-2008 6:04 AM


Atheist Propaganda
Though not nearly so pernicious as Creationist propaganda, there is, for a fact, atheist propaganda, but all propaganda is to be disparaged. You’ll sooner or later or even right now run into the acronym “PRATT” : Points Refuted A Thousand Times. Once a week a Creationist having just fed his brain on a Creo propaganda site, thinks it to be devastating argument and he shows up over here to jack us up for God. If he lasts a few days before being jacked himself it is only because he’s exceptionally obstinate. A real shame, but more often than not it’s the last we see of him. Click on “Members” at the top of this page and look at the number of members having two or three years seniority and six posts.

The point being that the Creo sites know they are repeating junk arguments but don’t care.

Arguments for creationism are a whole ‘nother matter. They fall into the same category as any other philosophical argument. However, none of the Creationist arguments are also scientific arguments and have a place in a science class.

I’m glad you’re not here to jack us up, and hope you stick around.

Way off topic so I'll say no more.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 6:04 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Wumpini, posted 05-02-2008 5:10 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 148 of 356 (465122)
05-03-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Wumpini
05-03-2008 6:15 AM


Define Patronizing
I, an atheist, have subjected myself to Bible study classes. My mum, a Catholic, is often surprised that I know more about the Bible than she does. If she and I were tested on Bible knowledge I'd be all up in her grill with my superior test results. That does not mean, however, that I believe it to be a factual document.

There is no reason the ToE can not be studied and learned in the same way by Creationists. After all, government schools only require that students know what the ToE states, not that they prescribe to it. Should all the test questions be preceded with the phrase “According to the ToE…”? How tedious would that be? As Rahvin said, deal with it at home.

Evolutionist aren’t antagonistic toward Creationist any more than craftsmen are agonistic toward patrons continually asking stupid pseudo-questions in an authoritative manner. And yes, there are stupid pseudo-questions.

5 & 6 on your list would be patronizing if you ask me.

Let me summarize my solution.

Parents and their children need to be taught that nothing is being taught in government schools that is intended to challenge the faith of the students.

Parents and their children need to be taught that their religious beliefs could be completely factual and true, however science deals with the natural world and has no possible way to deal with anything that cannot be observed and tested.

Parents and their children need to be taught that those things taught as science in school will be what is observed even if it contradicts their religious beliefs.

Finally, parents and their children need to understand that if their religious beliefs could be proven to be true, and if their beliefs contradict science, then it would prove that the scientific theory is incorrect, and it would have to be changed. (This is the communication that would make or break the solution.)

If this could be done in a friendly manner, then I believe it would go a long way toward solving the problem.

What on this list hasn’t been endlessly repeated in these very pages? In this string? I remember these same points being made to me in the 70’s. Maybe someone needs to start listening in a friendly manner.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Wumpini, posted 05-03-2008 6:15 AM Wumpini has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Wumpini, posted 05-03-2008 5:08 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 260 of 356 (466418)
05-15-2008 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 5:39 AM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present. It would appear that whatever evidence appeared in nature, no matter what direction was taken, it would never disprove or falsify the present theory of evolution.

My great grandfather dedicated the last 85 years of his life dealing poker hands to himself out of a 52 card deck and writing them all down. In total he recorded 45 million hands.

If no one was there to see it how could we know if it were true or false?

Patterns.

We could try for a trillion years and never repeat his exact 45 million hand pattern. But there are other patterns we can investigate. How many pairs, three of a kinds, two pairs, etc. did he get. How many hearts, spades, clubs and diamonds? how many reds or blacks? Numbers and faces? Odds and evens? But do the patterns we find in Gampa’s record fit the patterns we would expect to find given the predictions forced upon us by the Theory of Probability?

There are many sets to test for randomness and the more tests his record passes the more likely his story is to be true. Given enough tests, and there are more than enough tests, it would be easier to do it then to fake it.

Likewise, evolution leaves predictable patterns. Never in a trillion years will our experiments repeat the exact pattern the rocks have recorded. But do the patterns we find in the rock fit the patterns we would expect to find given the predictions forced upon us by the Theory of Evolution?

The ToE has passed millions of test… this year. Every time someone finds a fossil in a strata it would be predicted to be in is a test. And conversely, when I look in Pleistocene lake beds I never find trilobites. One trilobite and the ToE has some ‘splainin’ to do. Or as the country song goes, “You only have to kill my daddy once to make me mad.”

The evidence supporting the ToE produced tomorrow will exceed the creo evidence against developed in the last century.

Why can I say that? Because they have produced no evidence against ToE at all in the last century. And in the future if any one does produce evidence against the ToE it is not likely to be a creo, but a scientist. And He’ll get a prize and a cake with his name on it.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 5:39 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 270 of 356 (466978)
05-18-2008 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Percy
05-18-2008 9:36 PM


Re: Facts and Theories
Second, there are the observations that water freezes and boils at certain fixed temperatures (32°F and 212°F respectively) that provided us the Fahrenheit temperature scale.

?


Kindly

∞∞∞∞

Ta-da ≠ QED


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 05-18-2008 9:36 PM Percy has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 302 of 356 (500705)
03-01-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by alaninnont
03-01-2009 10:03 PM


Hi New Guy
Type [qs]The material to quote[/qs] and you'll get:
The material to quote

You can also look at the peek button to see how other folks did other things. And to add to that there's dBCode help next to the message box I'm typing in right now.

One is that you are confusing evolution with natural selection.
Are you confusing natural selection with natural history? Natural selection is the second half of evolution according to the ToE.

This is like a dog breeding program. It is not evolution.

Dog breeding is evolution. Just not natural evolution because the selection process is artificial.

Evolution is an increase in complexity and organization through incremental change leading from one species to another.

No, it's not. Evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Nothing about an increase in complexity or organization or speciation. The ToE states that evolution through mutation and natural selection is adequate to explain the natural history of life on Earth.

There are no facts in science.

A fact in science are the empirical bits and pieces like rabbits and compass readings. We do in fact see rabbits. And we can read compasses — some better then others.

Claiming evolution as a fact is misleading and harmful to the reputation of science.

No. Evolution is one of those observable bits and pieces — a fact. The ToE is a theory — not a fact. A theory tentatively explains the facts. A hypothesis is a well educated guess put forward for testing.

This argument has been done a gazillion times. Look around a bit and you'll find other response that get into depths well beyond anything needed to convince all but the intentionally perverse.

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Dang! two people beat me to the answer while I mis-proof read.

Edited by lyx2no, : Another typo.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by alaninnont, posted 03-01-2009 10:03 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 307 of 356 (500864)
03-02-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by alaninnont
03-02-2009 5:42 PM


Who's Arguing

Here is the dictionary definition;
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Yeah…well, ya' see, the thing with dictionary definitions is that they are generally written for laymen such as ourselves, while the EvC debate can't work with layman definitions because we would be arguing straw men. You want to argue real evolutionary theory you have to use grown-up definitions. Evolution is change over time. Chucking in "more complex" or — even worse — "better" detract from the meaning; even making it wrong. Many things can evolve to become simpler: i.e., troglobite shrimp and fish, snakes, glass snakes and Rhode Islanders.

Natural selection is not evolution.

One point for you. Natural selection is not evolution. Who said it was? I specifically said it wasn't few posts back. (BTW, in the lower, right hand corner of each post is a reply button that will tie your response to that post and alert that poster if they have selected that option.)

Natural selection cannot lead from single cell organisms to humans.

Another point for you.

Natural selection does not lead to an increase in complexity.

Hat trick!

The industrial revolution caused soot on trees that made white butterflies more visible and therefore easier prey. Their population decreased but there was no increase in the complexity of the genetic code of the darker coloured butterflies to create a more advanced organism.

I hear it happen with the moths too; but there's that pesky word complex again. I'm starting to think your argument depends upon it. That makes wonder who you're arguing with.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by alaninnont, posted 03-02-2009 5:42 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3167 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 319 of 356 (501138)
03-04-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


ToE & LoT
If you are driving down the highway and you see white stones that spell out the words, "Welcome to Timmins", is your immediate thought;
a) Isn't that interesting that all those white stones rolled down the hill and stopped in exactly the right spot to spell out those words.
or
b) Someone put the stones there?

Is this meant as an example of a violation of the LoT? It's not. The folks who laid it out ate breakfast turning it into less ordered poo. The breakfast was less organized the the total amount of sun shine that went into making it.

3.5 billion years of sunshine went into making single cell organisms evolve into blue whales and sequoias.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 4:09 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020