Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:34 AM
43 online now:
Dredge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
16Next
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 121 of 235 (647123)
01-08-2012 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:42 AM


Re: One by one
Also explain chemical evolution too. How where when did it start?

Chuck, you have been given an answer, so what exactly are you looking for here?

Are you asking to be pointed to the literally thousands of research papers on this topic?

Are you asking bluegenes to summarise this immense body of work in a few succint sentences that you can understand?

Are you claiming that such research doesn't exist?

Are you claiming that such research is wrong in its entirety?

Are you claiming that such research will never succeed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:42 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 235 (647124)
01-08-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by cavediver
01-08-2012 7:00 AM


Re: One by one
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.

For instance "chemical evolution by natural selction"

YES, SOME EVIDENCE WOULD SUFFICE THAT NATURAL SELCTION IS RESPONSIBLE.

Can you provide it? <---- smiley.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2012 7:00 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 01-08-2012 9:57 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 01-09-2012 4:50 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 123 of 235 (647129)
01-08-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:05 AM


Re: One by one
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.

Then you are asking for something different from the original 15 questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1719 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 124 of 235 (647130)
01-08-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:58 AM


Re: One by one
Evidence Doc...evidence.

The sad fact is that with many of the possibilities for abiogenesis, we may never find evidence of the particular route that life took. It is just too far in the past and occured at a time in Earth's history that was rather catastrophic. The best we can really hope for is to find theories of abiogenesis that are plausible and uncontradictory, with supporting evidence from lab work.

Is this a problem?

Is your argument really so poor as: "if you cannot definitively say how it happened, therefore God" ???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(7)
Message 125 of 235 (647132)
01-08-2012 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 5:48 AM


poor form indeed
If you can't do it you can't do it. It's Cool. That's why those 15 questions are making a lot of headway. Because when presented, you avoid them and call them silly while changing the subject, like both of you(and others) have done.

There are a number of problems with the questions.

1. Some of the answers are either 'we don't know' or 'we don't know exactly'. This is taken by creationists as an admission of defeat for evolution when it is nothing of the sort.

2. Some of the questions are poorly worded or rely on understandings that a clearly faulty. Therefore they cannot be answered directly, and instead the answer has to be a correction of the misapprehension that lies behind them. This is like saying 'If the book of Romans was written by Romans, why did St Paul hate the Church of Corinth?'. It is a gramattically correct question, but it is still nonsense. And when someone responds to such a question with 'But Romans wasn't written by Romans', this is taken as avoiding the question. Much like creationists have taken some of the responses to some of these questions.

3. Other answers have taken books, or weeks of tutoring for students who already have an impressive background in the subject at hand. These cannot be answered quickly, easily and in a way that can even be understood by the majority of humans (let alone creationists who have their own baggage) without extensive training. This inability to succinctly answer, in an understandable fashion, is seen as a victory for the anti-evolutionists.

4. Creationists cannot use their models to provide better answers.

Poor form indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 5:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by herebedragons, posted 01-08-2012 7:43 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 126 of 235 (647134)
01-08-2012 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:58 AM


Re: One by one
Huh? Words games?

Sorry I think your tired Doc. I was responding to bluegenes answer to question one where he sites NS. Maybe you wanna go back and read his answer.

Your short winded replies don't answer the question.

Yes they do.

If you ask a man: "What's your name?" and he says "John", then he has answered the question. He may not have shown you his birth certificate to prove it, but he has answered the question.

Evidence Doc...evidence.

This is exaclty why Percy didn't put this in the Science section because there is none.

The evidence for evolution lies principally in genetics, morphology, embryology, the paleontology, biogeography, and behavioral ecology. I may have missed one or two sciences there, it's getting late. I'm sure you will find these things amply discussed on this forum, or I'm sure you would find them if you could be bothered to look.

But the question, mercifully, did not ask us to teach half-a-dozen branches of science to a creationist, it just asked a question to which the answer is in fact the one word "evolution".

Now if you want more information, you are free to ask for it, here or on a thread where it's on topic, but don't pretend that the original list of questions hasn't been answered, 'cos it has.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(5)
Message 127 of 235 (647135)
01-08-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 5:48 AM


Re: Poor form
Hey Chuck,

You seem very unhappy with Panda's answers but you are not providing any reason why they are not correct.

I will expand on one of the answers (even though it does not need it) in the hope that it is more pleasing to you.

4.Why is natural selection taught as evolution as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

Pandas answer from Message 8 was - It isn't.

This answer is 100% accurate but does not offer much in the way of details. I will expand on the answer.

The first most obvious problem to my eyes is the idea that natural selection is taught as evolution. Panda's answer is that 'it isnt' and this is 100% correct.

Natural selection -
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.
(Source : http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection)

Evolution -
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

(Source: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution)

So one reason 'it isnt' is that natural selection is not taught as evolution. Not in any scince clases anyway. It is possible that in some creationist propaganda centers, subjects like natural selection and evolution may be taught in such confusing and misunderstood ways that this mistake may arise. We are doing what we can to fix this, hence my challenge in Message 110.

Another reason 'it isnt' is that neither natural selection or evolution make any comment with regards to the origin of life.

The link provided (http://creation.com/15-questions) makes a very serious and obvious mistake by suggesting that evolution (biological evolution) and the General Theory of Evolution as defined by Gerald A. Kerkut are the same thing. They provide links to support their claims, but the links go to articles on their own website. That is pretty poor academicaly speaking, supporting your claims with links to more of your own claims does not take you anywhere. So I had to look elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, the General theory of evolution as described in the brochure is found on creationist websites where it is incorrectly used to confuse readers in the same way as CMI is using it. Some creationist websites cant stomach this level of dishonesty and include statements like this -

The general theory of evolution should not be confused with biological evolution

(Source : http://creationwiki.org/Theory_of_evolution)

Even the folks over at Answers in Genesis know that the General Theory of Evolution and natuarl selection are different things -

Im surprised at the number of people who accept evolution and who cant tell the difference between the general theory of evolution (GTE) and natural selection.

(Source : http://www.answersingenesis.org/...dback-defining-evolutiond)

As even creationist sources try to ensure that people do not make this mistake, I am surprised that the mistake is still being made. Are you still making this mistake? Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?

So that is the second reason why 'it isnt' is a good answer.

The link originally provided for these questions contains this phrase -

How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

(Source: http://creation.com/15-questions)

Seriously Chuck. You have been on this site for a while now. You can't tell me that this sentence does not make you wince. It does not deserve any better an answer than 'is doesn't and it has never claimed to'.

My explanation of Panda's answers is by no means the full story. Just a few reasons why his answers are correct.

Will you need me to expand on all of the answers or will you be willing to attempt a rebuttal of Panda's answers directly?

*Panda, I hope I have not stolen your thunder here but his reply was to my post.

Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 5:48 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Percy, posted 01-08-2012 8:31 AM Butterflytyrant has responded
 Message 137 by Panda, posted 01-08-2012 1:21 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 128 of 235 (647138)
01-08-2012 7:37 AM


***LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE***
Hello all,

I wanted to make sure that members did not miss this message as it may have been lost amongst a few fast posts -

Please check here Message 110 for mny challenge to CMI on all of our behalf.

cheers,

BT


Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Larni, posted 01-08-2012 11:14 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 129 of 235 (647140)
01-08-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
01-08-2012 7:13 AM


Re: poor form indeed
Absolutely the best response yet! Cheers!

HBD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2012 7:13 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 130 of 235 (647146)
01-08-2012 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


Re: LOL!
Anel Vadren writes:

This irrelevant insult has little standing point, even as difficult as EvC's e-mail system is to operate. I herein disregard it.

Hi Anel, I'm Percy, I wrote all the code for EvC Forum. It would be a great help to me if you could describe the problems you experienced while trying to use "EvC's e-mail system."


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 131 of 235 (647154)
01-08-2012 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:58 AM


Re: One by one
Chuck77 writes:

This is exaclty why Percy didn't put this in the Science section because there is none.

I put it here because you had submitted a proposal that I thought we could work into a thread suitable for the science forums, but you changed your mind after I promoted this, saying it was sufficient that the original thread from Anel was moved (not promoted) to the Coffee House. People seem willing to give you scientific answers in this thread anyway, but if you'd prefer one of the science forums then just let me know and I'll reopen that thread so that we can complete the proposal process.

Edited by Admin, : Grammar.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 132 of 235 (647156)
01-08-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Butterflytyrant
01-08-2012 7:27 AM


Re: Poor form
Butterflytyrant writes:

Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?

I think you meant to say, "Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as *natural selection*?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 7:27 AM Butterflytyrant has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-09-2012 9:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 133 of 235 (647166)
01-08-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Butterflytyrant
01-08-2012 5:44 AM


Re: Open offer
BT:
I say send it! We need fresh meat around here anyway.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 5:44 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 134 of 235 (647168)
01-08-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:05 AM


Re: One by one
I'm asking for someone anyone to explain the 15 questions and not give one word answers without supporting evidence.

I dunno, that sounds like a lot of work.

Let me echo Dr. A's point, and ask: what have you done to deserve that much work from the rest of us? I mean, you didn't even come up with the questions, Chuck - you just copied and pasted what somebody else wrote. You're asking us to do quite a bit of research, writing, and very patient explaining of very complicated scientific concepts for you, and for what?

I mean, it's not like you're going to be convinced, right? We could do exactly what you say - answer each question in excruciating detail with supporting evidence, and you're just going to claim that our evidence is manufactured, because you believe that evolution is a lie and that all evolutionists are therefore liars. So why should we even bother? It's been months since anybody thought that you were someone who took discussion seriously. You're a troll and you're trolling us with copypasta. That's, like, the lowest possible form of trolling. What on Earth have you ever done to deserve what you're asking for? None of us give a shit whether you believe in evolution or not. It's real and it doesn't need your permission to happen and we don't need your permission to study it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Chuck77, posted 01-12-2012 4:43 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 135 of 235 (647186)
01-08-2012 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Butterflytyrant
01-08-2012 7:37 AM


Re: ***LOOK AT THIS MESSAGE***
I'd be interested to see what the response is and we could do with some new creos around here.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 7:37 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019