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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 76 of 752 (575006)
08-18-2010 5:19 PM


quote:
What do you mean with this?
Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong.
But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 5:22 AM Tram law has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 77 of 752 (575105)
08-18-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tram law
08-18-2010 4:20 PM


Does DNA disprove evolution? [...] If it can't be mapped all the way back to the time when life first began?
But why should it be?
The way to test a theory is to see whether our observations match its predictions.
Now, the concept of evolution does not in any way predict that we should be able to map the genomes of long-extinct species. This is something that we wouldn't be able to do no matter how true or false neo-Darwinism is.
As such it can have no bearing on the correctness of the theory.
One might as well argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because we can't describe the orbits of the bodies in the gravitational field of Aldebaran. To be sure, this is a gravity-related question, and one that we can't answer, but the theory does not in any way imply that we should be able to answer it --- so it is not a test of the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Tram law, posted 08-18-2010 4:20 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 12:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 78 of 752 (575106)
08-18-2010 9:37 PM


quote:
But why should it be?
In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science?

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2010 10:00 PM Tram law has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 752 (575109)
08-18-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Tram law
08-18-2010 9:37 PM


In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science?
It's already plenty falsifiable; and creationists will come up with bad arguments under any conceivable set of circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Tram law, posted 08-18-2010 9:37 PM Tram law has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 80 of 752 (575221)
08-19-2010 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tram law
08-18-2010 5:19 PM


Tram law writes:
Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong.
Since I have also no idea what they mean by that either, I can't help any further.
But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.
You're welcome mate. Keep in mind though that the wiki article, as extensive as it is, is still only a quick glance at all the evidence for common descent.
If you are ready to dive into the real scientific works that detail this evidence Google Scholar lists 3,010,000 articles concerning evolution, and 385,000 articles concerning Common Descent specifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tram law, posted 08-18-2010 5:19 PM Tram law has not replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 81 of 752 (575289)
08-19-2010 10:43 AM


Yeah, the sad thing is though if a person doesn't want to believe they won't change their belief no matter what and will play all kinds of games in order to support their beliefs so they can be both right and correct, which I've come to wonder that they could be two different things.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 10:48 AM Tram law has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 752 (575292)
08-19-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tram law
08-19-2010 10:43 AM


Hello Tram law,
I don't know if you're reply was to me or Dr. Adequate, but yes, the double standard boggles the mind sometimes.
Here's a tip, if you want to respond to a specific post, don't use the "general reply" button at the bottom left of the page, use the smaller "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you want to respond to. That makes it easier for everyone to follow, and it will send an e-mail to the writer of the post you are repsonding to that you responded to his post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tram law, posted 08-19-2010 10:43 AM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tram law, posted 08-19-2010 10:57 AM Huntard has replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4705 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 83 of 752 (575296)
08-19-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Huntard
08-19-2010 10:48 AM


I've been told that tip before, thanks. My post was a general response. However, this seems to be the only site that makes that tip mandatory. Other sites I've been on it's usually considered a direct response to the previous post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 10:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Huntard, posted 08-19-2010 12:28 PM Tram law has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 84 of 752 (575306)
08-19-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tram law
08-19-2010 10:57 AM


well, we're used to it that way here. And because everybody else does it, it becomes confusing when someone doesn't do it, that's all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tram law, posted 08-19-2010 10:57 AM Tram law has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 85 of 752 (575429)
08-20-2010 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
08-18-2010 9:26 PM


You are claiming the theory of random mutations causing genetic variations in species extensive enough to allow natural selection to form all the variation of life we see on the planet can make a lot of predictions?
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-18-2010 9:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2010 2:28 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 3:12 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 752 (575437)
08-20-2010 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
08-20-2010 12:53 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions?
Sure.
  • Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa.
  • Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates.
  • Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey.
  • Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution.
  • Tiktaalik
  • Life should fit into a nested hierarchy.
    For more, see this list. And no, these are not all predictions for evolution, as you can see, Tiktaalik is not in that list, as is the nested hierarchy, yet I would list those as predictions for evolution.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 12:53 AM Bolder-dash has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 88 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 3:34 AM Huntard has replied

    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 284 days)
    Posts: 16113
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 87 of 752 (575445)
    08-20-2010 3:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
    08-20-2010 12:53 AM


    I'll start a thread, hold on.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 12:53 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

    Bolder-dash
    Member (Idle past 3630 days)
    Posts: 983
    From: China
    Joined: 11-14-2009


    Message 88 of 752 (575452)
    08-20-2010 3:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
    08-20-2010 2:28 AM


    Which of these predictions is predicated on there being random mutations and natural selection to cause them?
    I can make a theory that says all of human emotions are created by the remnants of the fragrance of apples in the air. And to prove my theory through predictions, I predict some people will get upset tomorrow, and some will be happy, and some will laugh.
    See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true.
    I love science!
    Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 86 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2010 2:28 AM Huntard has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 3:46 AM Bolder-dash has replied
     Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 5:57 AM Bolder-dash has replied
     Message 92 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2010 6:07 AM Bolder-dash has replied
     Message 101 by abrown9, posted 08-20-2010 12:58 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 89 of 752 (575453)
    08-20-2010 3:46 AM
    Reply to: Message 88 by Bolder-dash
    08-20-2010 3:34 AM


    That would certainly be a prediction, but it doesn't function as a test of your theory because the prediction will be true regardless of whether your theory is.
    Whereas the experiments that verified natural selection would have had different results depending on whether or not natural selection actually occurs (of course, if you think about it it's trivially and obviously true that natural selection occurs, because not all members of a species live as long, or have the same number of offspring.)
    The experiments that verified mutation would have had different results depending on whether or not mutation happens (of course, it's also trivially and obviously true that mutations must occur, because genetic sequences have to be copied for organisms to grow and reproduce, and it would be impossible for those sequences to be copied without errors every single time.)
    I love science!
    Why not try learning some, sometime? It's pretty useful, you know.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 88 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 3:34 AM Bolder-dash has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 90 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 5:44 AM crashfrog has replied

    Bolder-dash
    Member (Idle past 3630 days)
    Posts: 983
    From: China
    Joined: 11-14-2009


    Message 90 of 752 (575477)
    08-20-2010 5:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
    08-20-2010 3:46 AM


    Whereas the experiments that verified natural selection would have had different results depending on whether or not natural selection actually occurs (of course, if you think about it it's trivially and obviously true that natural selection occurs, because not all members of a species live as long, or have the same number of offspring.)
    The experiments that verified mutation would have had different results depending on whether or not mutation happens (of course, it's also trivially and obviously true that mutations must occur, because genetic sequences have to be copied for organisms to grow and reproduce, and it would be impossible for those sequences to be copied without errors every single time.)
    Site your evidence please.
    The experiments that verified mutation...
    Did you mean to say mutations or random mutations? Is there a reason you left out "random"?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 3:46 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 4:31 PM Bolder-dash 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