Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is True Because Life Needs It
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(2)
Message 91 of 188 (653485)
02-21-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by markl67
02-21-2012 5:05 PM


My contention is that the evolutionary hypothesis is bunk based on the fact that it doesn't address (because it can't) the issue of origin.
Because it is not supposed to. Chemistry does not address the origin of atoms. Theory of Gravity does not address the origin of the universe or of mass. Theoris are generally very focused things, they pick one aspect, in the ToE's case, it is addressing the fact that we see variation and adaptation, supported by fossils, DNA and morphology.
What I'm saying is submitting a model on creation is not taken seriously because if/when the term "creator" is used its directly tied to God and deemed religious. It's like inviting a basketball team to play in a hockey rink.
When speaking in a scientific sense, what gets thrown out are only those ideas that have no evidence to support them, or that are less supported by the evidence than a competing theory. A model that includes a creator would be embraced, assuming that model had evidence, made prediciotns that could be tested, and was better at (or at least as good at) explaining the current evidence as the currently accepted model (ToE). If that seems daunting, that's because it is, we have hundreds of years and literally trillions of bits of evidence that all appears to support the ToE. Most creationists have "What if" questions, old books, quote mines, and fallacies of incredulousness and authority.
Trust me, a scientist that could successfully overturn the ToE would be hailed as a genius by the scientific community, would win a Nobel Prize, and would probably become more famous than anyone else in the world. If you seriously think anyone would decide to just let that go in order to uphold a theory they now know to be wrong, you're deluded.
Your reality is skewed in my mind...how anyone can look at nature and the amazing human anatomy and arrive at anything other than ID is mind boggling to me.
Just as yours is skewed in ours. How anyone could look at nature and the world around them and not see the majestic struggle for life, the overcoming of enormous odds, and, yes, the poor design, and assume that it couldn't happen naturally, seems to be simply denying that which seems obvious to the rest of us.
Nature is amazing. I'm in awe of it constantly, especially when we discover some new species or find a new planet circling some distant star. To demean all of nature by saying someone must have made it so, that it couldn't have happened naturally is, to me, hubris at best and willful ignorance at worst.
My point is if atheists are right then who cares, but if wrong then you have a major problem don't you. I cant even imagine thinking this life is it...
I'm an athiest, and I care. If all that is holding you back from committing immoral acts is the fear of eternal punishment, then I sincerely hope you never lose your faith. For the rest of us, the fact that we live in a society, that we have empathy, and that we recognize that everyone's life is fleeting is more than enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 5:05 PM markl67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 7:31 PM Perdition has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 188 (653488)
02-21-2012 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by markl67
02-21-2012 5:05 PM


more misrepresentation
I'm not admitting defeat (not that this is a win-able debate by either side in all likelihood). What I'm saying is submitting a model on creation is not taken seriously because if/when the term "creator" is used its directly tied to God and deemed religious.
Nonsense.
Bring in the creator for testing and examination and present the model and method that critter used so that it can be examined and tested and folk might start taking you seriously.
Until then you have absolutely nothing of value to add to the current knowledge.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 5:05 PM markl67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 7:42 PM jar has replied

  
markl67
Junior Member (Idle past 4418 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-20-2012


Message 93 of 188 (653501)
02-21-2012 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Perdition
02-21-2012 5:21 PM


Fair enough. Thank you for stating your position in a courteous and respectful way.
I know we're getting way off topic but this type statement saddens me..."If all that is holding you back from committing immoral acts is the fear of eternal punishment, then I sincerely hope you never lose your faith."... the perception that God is angry and/or unloving. I never fear eternal punishment no matter what I do because I believe someone took my place and paid the debt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Perdition, posted 02-21-2012 5:21 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Perdition, posted 02-22-2012 11:13 AM markl67 has not replied

  
markl67
Junior Member (Idle past 4418 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-20-2012


Message 94 of 188 (653502)
02-21-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
02-21-2012 5:37 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Right...I guess anything short of you actually examining the Creator just won't suffice...
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that humans are without excuse."...from that book you don't believe exists...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 5:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 8:19 PM markl67 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 95 of 188 (653503)
02-21-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by markl67
02-21-2012 7:42 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Correct, if you are going to try to introduce some creator critter in a science thread then you had best be prepared to bringing that critter in for examination as well as trotting out the tools, model and methods that critter used to effect change.
And posting totally irrelevant quote mines won't help your case. I at least, am not the one denying any of GOD's nature, just pointing out that you are committing an extreme act of hubris and will be judged for that.
You are posting in a science forum and making claims in a science forum and so you will have to learn that over here your myths have little value and you will be expected to provide more than quote mined irrelevant material.
Edited by jar, : you ---> your; appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 7:42 PM markl67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 8:41 PM jar has replied

  
markl67
Junior Member (Idle past 4418 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 02-20-2012


Message 96 of 188 (653504)
02-21-2012 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by jar
02-21-2012 8:19 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Fair enough on the science forum comment....understood. As a suggestion to you, perhaps you could show some respect for others beliefs and stop with the "myths" comments.
As to the rest of your post I have no clue what you're talking about. Calling God a critter and expecting to actually examine Him...and I'm committing hubris...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 8:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 02-21-2012 8:52 PM markl67 has not replied
 Message 98 by dwise1, posted 02-21-2012 9:55 PM markl67 has not replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2012 11:14 PM markl67 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 97 of 188 (653505)
02-21-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by markl67
02-21-2012 8:41 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
As a suggestion to you, perhaps you could show some respect for others beliefs and stop with the "myths" comments.
No. Beliefs deserve no respect, they should be challenged, questioned, doubted and tested.
As to the rest of your post I have no clue what you're talking about. Calling God a critter and expecting to actually examine Him...and I'm committing hubris...?
Simply pointing out reality and fact. You may believe in some god, I may believe in some god, but beliefs are pretty much worthless on the science side.
Hubris is not just what I call your position, over 12,000 US Christian Clergy say that.
quote:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.
From the Clergy Letter Project.
Edited by Admin, : Remove censoring.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 8:41 PM markl67 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 98 of 188 (653508)
02-21-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by markl67
02-21-2012 8:41 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Calling God a critter and expecting to actually examine Him...and I'm committing hubris...?
Well, not necessarily the "critter" part, but the rest is true.
Review basic scientific method ... assuming that you've learned it at some time or other, an assumption that is all too often very wild when applied to creationists. Hypothesis building and testing, which can lead to theory building and testing. You observe something and form a hypothesis to explain it. You then test that hypothesis and find it lacking, in which case you either modify it or reject it for another. You test that new/modified hypothesis and repeat the process.
OK, what if you want to use a supernaturalistic hypothesis. How do you test it? No, that is not a rhetorical question: how would you ever be able to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? We cannot observe the supernatural, nor can we measure it in any fashion, nor even determine whether the supernatural even exists. Science cannot work with the supernatural. We even had a topic here asking IDists to explain just exactly how their proposed supernatural-based science was supposed to actually work and no answer was forthcoming. Science cannot work with the supernatural, but only with naturalisitic causes and hypotheses, since we can observe and quantify those. This is called methodological naturalism, which is entirely different from philosophical naturalism that the Discover Institute falsely accuses science of employing.
So then, yes absolutely, if any god, including yours, is to be included in science, then we absolutely do need to be able to observe and to examine him or her or whatever. That's not hubris, but rather scientific necessity. If we cannot, then the gods are absolutely useless as a scientific explanation for anything. Not as a value judgement on God or on any other of the gods, but rather because science cannot work with the supernatural.
And your {plural} hubris is in expecting special treatment in having science completely changed in order to include "God".
Edited by dwise1, : included the other gods

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 8:41 PM markl67 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 99 of 188 (653509)
02-21-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by markl67
02-20-2012 9:37 PM


remedial science 101
Hi markl67 and welcome to the fray.
I've read through several of your posts and have some comments to make that my help you.
As a believer in creation (ID) it seems to me that the evolution hypothesis attempts to build its case from the 2nd floor up. It cannot reasonably explain the origin of the "primordial ooze" from whence all life originated from.
The science of evolution does not address how stars form and are distributed throughout the universe, nor does it address chemical reactions. It does not address how rock formations occur, and it does not address how radioactivity works.
The science of evolution does not address these things because they are addressed in other sciences.
The science involved with explaining origins of life is abiogenesis:
abiogenesis - Google Search
The first four hits are worth reading
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis ...
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak - YouTube
Curiously, Dr. Jack Szostak is a scientist who is actually studying and testing possibilities regarding the origin of life on earth, working in the field of abiogenesis.
Note that is seems rather dishonest to be proclaiming loudly that evolution does not explain origins when there are people working in the field of abiogenesis to do just that -- so your complaint is not about evolution, but about you not having been informed of the actual science involved.
All life and the perfect order of the universe could not have come into existence by random chance.
Regardless of the accuracy of this assertion, there is one thing we know: life exists on this planet now, and life has existed on this planet for some time ... around 3.5 billion years give or take.
We can study that life and the record of that life, both with fossils and with DNA. This involves the science of biology, paleontology and genomics.
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Not that in order to have change from one generation to the next you must have living populations: evolution by definition deals with living populations and not the origins of life.
Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other.
The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the daughter populations results in different, independent, evolutionary responses in the daughter populations to their different ecological opportunities.
Independent evolution within each subpopulation results in divergence of the subpopulations.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
If a species is observed to change (micro-evolution), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the hereditary traits (genes, morphology), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread in following generations.
If a clade is observed to form (macro-evolution), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) divergent (micro-)evolution within each daughter population.
These predictions can be tested against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.
Message 74: Evolution does not need to explain origins? Exactly my point - building an argument from the 2nd story up. How do I know something doesnt come from nothing? Because it can't and it doesn't - ...
And your point is still wrong, evolution deals with changes from generation to generation, and thus life must already exist to study evolution. Evolution does not address origins because that is done within the scientific bounds of abiogenesis. If you want to discuss abiogenesis then we will be happy to do that, but you need to be on a different thread (the topic here is about evolution, not abiogenesis).
Your point is like walking into a math class and complaining that they aren't studying history.
... You've heard this example before but it bears repeating...take apart a car and then blow up the parts and then parts re-form into the car (big bang). ...
What bears repeating is that this is a hoary old PRATT, and I suggest you learn what the term means.
Message 88: Yes, I know what the HoE says...I'm nor more "indoctrinated" by a pastor than you are by a professor/teacher right?. My contention is that the evolutionary hypothesis is bunk based on the fact that it doesn't address (because it can't) the issue of origin. ...
And yet, rather obviously, you do NOT know what the theory of evolution says or you would not be making this statement.
Your own words show that your assertion is false.
... Its my contention that all life is by intentional and intelligent design and because of that species do not need to change into something they weren't created for. Adapt/change within a species does not equal evolution.
Do you have any scientific objective observable evidence to support this assertion, or are supposed to just take it on faith that you know more about life than millions of biologist when you don't know what the field of evolution studies?
Curiously, science does not take a single hypothesis on faith, only hypothesis that are tested against scientific objective observable evidence are deemed worthy of further study.
Now if you want to discuss this further, I suggest you start a topic on just this assertion, as it too is not the topic of this thread.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
Edited by RAZD, : ngls

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by markl67, posted 02-20-2012 9:37 PM markl67 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 100 of 188 (653510)
02-21-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by markl67
02-20-2012 11:34 PM


Re: There will be a 101 level course for Creationists.
In Message 73:
jar writes:
GOD is far grander than the picayune little bling-bling pimp daddy worshiped by the Creationists.
To which in Message 75:
markl67 writes:
You state God is far grander - grander than what? But not grand enough to speak the universe into existence? I worship the God of the Bible. What God are you referring to?
Basically, he is speaking about the real God, Sovereign over Nature, as opposed to the creationist and ID "God of the Gaps". The real God is omnipotent and has nothing to fear from science, whereas the God of the Gaps, born as he is from and residing in the gaps in human knowledge, is puny and powerless and lives in constant fear of the ongoing growth of human knowledge which keeps shrinking his gaps inexorably.
To help you better understand creationism's and ID's "God of the Gaps", I would like to recommend some essays that Dr. Allen Harvey, a physicist specializing in water (hence, "SteamDoc"), wrote for his Sunday School. Here's an exerpt from his Science and Christian Apologetics :
quote:
The second problem where we dictate to God is telling him how he is and isn't allowed to create. There's a common view that the world runs completely on its own, except maybe for a few interventions where God sticks his hand in and does something. Of course atheists have this view (and then they say that the number of interventions is zero), but a lot of Christians have it too, they have the idea that in order for something to really "count" as God's work, it can't be natural, God has to have worked in some sort of miraculous interventionist way. There's actually a name for that, it's called "God of the Gaps" theology. God of the Gaps theology divides the world into 2 categories. There's things we can’t explain (gaps in our understanding where we say "that's where God is" [in primitive times thunder and lightning were gaps]). The second category is things where we do have a natural explanation, and therefore God isn't in those places. The result of "God of the Gaps" theology is that every time science finds a natural explanation for something, one more gap closes up and God gets squeezed closer to nonexistence. This forces Christians who have this theology to attack science in order to make room for God.
Maybe my most important message today is that this "God of the Gaps" theology is wrong. The reason it's wrong is that God is sovereign over nature. (Take-home point #2) The Bible tells us that everything that exists is upheld by God's power. God isn't just in the gaps, he's the creator and sustainer of the whole fabric of creation, including the things we call "natural." So what does God's sovereignty over nature mean for our apologetics? It means that science isn't any threat to Christianity. Scientific results don't count as points against God, they're just uncovering how God did things. It means that if somebody has the idea that some scientific explanation (evolution or whatever) has eliminated God, the wrong thing to do is to argue against the science — that's defending the God of the Gaps and it's a losing strategy (unfortunately, it's the strategy of a lot of Christians). The right thing to do is to remember that God is sovereign over nature, that the atheist argument that natural explanations mean God is absent isn't science, it's completely unjustified philosophy. We can tell people that natural explanations may eliminate the God of the Gaps, but they don't eliminate the Christian God.
His writings are listed at http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings.htm. Read the essay I quoted from and I would also recommend his What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean? and A Personal View of the Evolution Issue .
I had found his writings when search for info on the "Joshua's Long Day" claim which was one of the two creationist claims I was first given in 1970 and from which I immediately realized that creationism is worse than pure hokum. SteamDoc's essay on the claim is Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day"
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by markl67, posted 02-20-2012 11:34 PM markl67 has not replied

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


(3)
Message 101 of 188 (653513)
02-21-2012 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by markl67
02-21-2012 8:41 PM


Re: more misrepresentation
Fair enough on the science forum comment....understood. As a suggestion to you, perhaps you could show some respect for others beliefs and stop with the "myths" comments.
As to the rest of your post I have no clue what you're talking about. Calling God a critter and expecting to actually examine Him...and I'm committing hubris...?
Well, some people might like to claim that a talking snake outwitted God. Some people might want to claim that a purple anteater played the trombone. I do not wish to give offense. I really don't. But as a nonbeliever, I find these two claims equally plausible.
If you would like to convert me, then that's where you have to start. I start off by thinking that those two propositions are on a level. What you want to do is convince me that one of them is true but the other one is ridiculous.
You're not going to get anywhere if you get into a snit and just tell people that they're not showing enough respect. The world is full of propositions that I don't respect. I don't respect the idea that the Earth is flat. I don't respect the idea that GWB planned 9/11. I don't respect the idea that the pyramids were built by aliens.
As a non-believer, I think that literal belief in the book of Genesis is about on a par with those ideas. This isn't because I've been sitting around trying to think out how to insult or disrespect you, it's just what I happen to think. Perhaps I'm wrong. Oops.
So if you want to go and convert people then it's no use starting off by saying "Oh, you should be more polite, you shouldn't laugh at me." Because your ideas are, on the face of it, laughable. It's up to you to show that they aren't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by markl67, posted 02-21-2012 8:41 PM markl67 has not replied

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 4160 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 102 of 188 (653514)
02-21-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Panda
02-20-2012 5:48 AM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Ok, you accept that some major physical changes can happen during evolution. e.g. from large to small, from hairy to hairless.
The evolution of a large dog to a small dog is certainly change of a kind. When the creationist Gregor Mendel discovered natural selection, he observed that peaplants could be crossbred to create different types of peaplants. Tall ones, short ones, big ones, little ones, different colored ones. Most species have this ability for variation within fundamentally stable species. Similarly with dogs, there is a wide variety of dogs, many of which have been created through selective breeding and artificial selection. All dogs, however, are one species and dont change into something fundamentally different. This isnt because you dont have enough time, its because you run out of variation.
The reasoning of course is that selective breeding is proof of evolution. And if we dont observe grand macro changes in nature, its because enough time hasnt passed. However, a child can spot the flaw in the scenario. One flaw is that artificial selection and selective breeding is a purposeful process with intelligence, skill and precision. Evolution is an unguided, purposeless and natural process. A step by step process, micromutation accumulated through natural selection, producing the diverse groups of animals from a cellular ancestor. Nature did its own creating, there was no intelligent agent. Another flaw is that breeders can produce change only within boundaries. Pigeons for example have been bred for 10,000 years, but they are still pigeons. There are also many examples of animals staying relatively the same over 200 million years, such as the cockroach. There are many types of cockroaches in the world, but they are still cockroaches. So even with large amounts of time, the limits for variability in the gene pool still exist.
This is why evolutionary biologists proclaim minor variation within species such as the peppered moths, as evidence for the grand macro evolutionary changes that happened in the past. Why is it that the best evidence for a mechanism capable of creating complex organisms, body plans, and changing a species into another, is Darwins finches and the peppered moths? The theory says we all evolved from a bacteria, which turned into a small animal and eventually into a human. And if you ask what the evidence is, the answer will be look at the different types dogs. So evidence for change within species is being extrapolated to explain how you get animals in the first place. Not how you get variation once you have the animal in existence.
While we certainly observe this kind of change:
We dont observe life arising from non-life, evolving into multicellular life, evolving into fish, evolving into amphibians, evolving into reptiles, evolving into birds, evolving into mammals, evolving into humans. Nor will ever.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Panda, posted 02-20-2012 5:48 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2012 2:46 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 104 by Warthog, posted 02-22-2012 4:38 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2012 8:42 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 02-22-2012 11:21 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 02-22-2012 12:57 PM Portillo has replied
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 02-22-2012 2:05 PM Portillo has not replied
 Message 118 by Panda, posted 02-23-2012 11:54 AM Portillo has not replied
 Message 120 by Panda, posted 02-25-2012 4:29 AM Portillo has not replied

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


(2)
Message 103 of 188 (653520)
02-22-2012 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Portillo
02-21-2012 11:25 PM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
When the creationist Gregor Mendel discovered natural selection ...
That is a lie so huge that I am somewhat surprised that the enormity of the lie was not so massive as to create a black hole and compact us all into a point beyond the event horizon.
This is why evolutionary biologists proclaim minor variation within species such as the peppered moths, as evidence for the grand macro evolutionary changes that happened in the past. Why is it that the best evidence for a mechanism capable of creating complex organisms, body plans, and changing a species into another, is Darwins finches and the peppered moths?
This is, of course, a huge enormous lie. That is not the evidence put forward for large-scale evolution, and anyone who pretends that it is is either droolingly ignorant or a deliberate liar. I shall not speculate as to which category you belong to, but it's certainly one or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Portillo, posted 02-21-2012 11:25 PM Portillo has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


Message 104 of 188 (653521)
02-22-2012 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Portillo
02-21-2012 11:25 PM


Avoiding the question
from Message 66
quote:
Thanks. I will answer your question as soon as I can
So I take it that we're still waiting for you to be able to answer the question? This doesn't come close.
quote:
The evolution of a large dog to a small dog is certainly change of a kind.
What, exactly is a kind? If you're going to use the term, please define it. How can we tell what two creatures are part of the same kind?
quote:
We dont observe life arising from non-life, evolving into multicellular life, evolving into fish, evolving into amphibians, evolving into reptiles, evolving into birds, evolving into mammals, evolving into humans. Nor will ever.
We don't observe wolves evolving into chihuahuas either but you believe it. Why? What's the difference? I'll bet you've never seen dachshunds evolve into greyhounds. Irrefutable evidence that selective breeding is an atheist plot, perhaps?
I'll bet you've ignored this before but the real fact of the matter is that we have evidence that supports that ...
modern fishes share a common ancestor with modern amphibians - they are all gnathostomes as they all have jaws in their skulls
modern amphibians share a common ancestor with reptile, birds and mammals - they are all tetrapods with four limbs
modern reptiles, birds and mammals all share a common ancestor - they are all amniotes which develop membranes around their embryos and thus bypass a larval stage
modern humans are just part of mammalia with all of the features which define the class.
It all fits the evidence and in a very real sense, we can see it just by looking most of the time. This is why you don't see furry lizards.
from 404: This page could not be found
It's really just about recognising the patterns.

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Portillo, posted 02-21-2012 11:25 PM Portillo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 188 (653526)
02-22-2012 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Portillo
02-21-2012 11:25 PM


Re: Prompt for Portillo...
Hi Portillo,
The evolution of a large dog to a small dog is certainly change of a kind. ...
Do you agree or disagree that a kind would form a clade of animals related to a common ancestor?
|
                         ^ a
                        / \
                       /   \
                      /     ^ b
                   c ^     / \
                    / \   /   \
Here "a" is a common ancestor to the four end groups, "b" is a common ancestor to the two right side groups, and "c" is a common ancestor to the two left side groups.
We see this pattern in DNA and in the fossil record, so we know that this pattern of development of daughter groups from parent groups is a fact in nature.
Do you agree or disagree that this is the pattern for the evolution within a kind?
... When the creationist Gregor Mendel discovered natural selection, ...
He did nothing of the kind. What he discovered was the hereditary pattern of genetic traits by isolating the patterns of hereditary transmission from one generation to the next (even though he did not know about genes - he observed and documented the effects). There is speculation that had Darwin read his work that he would have been in a position to incorporate this into his theory (apparently a copy was in his library).
... he observed that peaplants could be crossbred to create different types of peaplants.
And again this is a false statement: he observed that traits in a breeding population could be isolated into dominant and recessive traits. He observed that when pure strains of plants with dominant traits were bred with pure strains of plants with recessive traits, that hybrid plants displaying the dominant traits occurred. He observed that when two of these first generation hybrids were bred that they resulted in two outcomes:
  • plants that displayed dominant traits
  • plants that displayed recessive traits
And he observed that the ratio was three plants with dominant traits to one plant with recessive traits.
Through further breeding and observation he determined that of the three plants with dominant traits, one had pure dominant traits and two had the same hybrid mix as the first generation hybrids.
Tall ones, short ones, big ones, little ones, different colored ones.
He did not create these traits, but isolated them from the existing population of plants. These traits existed in the breeding population of plants.
Similarly with dogs, there is a wide variety of dogs, many of which have been created through selective breeding and artificial selection. All dogs, however, are one species and dont change into something fundamentally different. This isnt because you dont have enough time, its because you run out of variation.
I wasn't aware that the world was ending that soon.
While we certainly observe this kind of change:
Do you agree or disagree that these changes took many generations to reach the diversity shown?
Do you agree or disagree that the degree of variation seen in dogs is greater than what is normally seen in natural populations of breeding organisms -- ie that this is an extremely large amount of variation for a breeding population to have and still maintain gene flow?
Would you care to discuss this further on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? thread?
The reasoning of course is that selective breeding is proof of evolution. ...
Again a false statement. Darwin used the objective empirical evidence of selective breeding as a basis for formulating his theory of natural selection.
This is why evolutionary biologists proclaim minor variation within species such as the peppered moths, as evidence for the grand macro evolutionary changes that happened in the past. ...
Peppered moths are evidence of natural selection, not microevolution or macroevolution.
Why is it that the best evidence for a mechanism capable of creating complex organisms, body plans, and changing a species into another, is Darwins finches and the peppered moths?
Again this is a falsehood: they are evidence of natural selection, one of the elements that goes into the process of evolution.
Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Hereditary traits per Mendel plus natural selection per Darwin, the moths and finches, plus generations of breeding results in evolution.
Macroevolution occurs when speciation has occurred:
Speciation is the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations that then evolve independently of each other.
Once speciation has occurred there is more diversity of species.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution, and the process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Note that speciation has been observed, whether it is incipient in dogs is immaterial to the fact that it -- and thus macroevolution -- has occurred.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : betr ngls

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Portillo, posted 02-21-2012 11:25 PM Portillo 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