|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Dredge writes: When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact. No, once again that is simply not true. However the evidence is clear that for many millions of years only very simple life forms lived. BUT, if a very simply life for did exist, then at that time the only direction would be towards greater complexity. However very simple forms of life continued to exist just as they exist today.
Dredge writes: Evolution requires more than just natural selection, so it is erroneous to cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. Only con men, Creationists and the ignorant seem to think foolish nonsense like that. Guess what? At least since Darwin the two sides, mutation and natural selection have been fundamental to the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Guess what? At least since Darwin the two sides, mutation and natural selection have been fundamental to the Theory of Evolution. Well, not mutation, since that depended on some knowledge of genetics which Darwin did not have, and didn't come along for quite some time after Darwin. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Guess what? At least since Darwin the two sides, mutation and natural selection have been fundamental to the Theory of Evolution.
Well, not mutation, since that depended on some knowledge of genetics which Darwin did not have, and didn't come along for quite some time after Darwin. Well, he wrote extensively about variation, he just didn't know that it arose from mutations. He knew that natural selection acted to eliminate some variations and favor others. Simple yet elegant.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, he wrote extensively about variation, he just didn't know that it arose from mutations. He knew that natural selection acted to eliminate some variations and favor others. Simple yet elegant. I see. Interesting. Of course it DOESN"T arise from mutations, the alternative forms of the genes are built in; and of course although natural selection is sometimes the cause of the elimination of some variations to favor others, it happens more often from the new gene frequencies brought about by the simple splitting of a population into two or more subpopulations, and especially in the smaller population, with reproductive isolation. I guess I need to write my own book on evolution. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Of course it DOESN"T arise from mutations, the alternative forms of the genes are built in Of course, there is not one shred of evidence to support your fantasy. Not a single geneticist agrees with you. You know, they actually study genes.
I guess I need to write my own book on evolution. Well, we know that's not going to happen, don't we? What you know about evolution will fit on 2 pages at most.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It will be a short book, short but pithy, and of course I'll do it in two sections, the one on biology as just described, and the other on geology which will show the absurdity of the Old Earth interpretation of the strata. I'll be happy to send you a signed copy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
A book on evolution that has a geology section. Interesting. You really do show your lack of knowledge and education quite often.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Wrong. They would be more likely referring to the mechanisms by which life changes over time. The evolution of antibiotic resistence being an example of those mechanisms in action.
quote: In experimental demonstrations of antibiotic resistance it is quite common to start with a clonal population. If selection were all there was to it, there would be no differing strains to select from.
quote: And there IS more to antibiotic resistance - the resistance is the product of mutation. So now we have established that you were wrong, perhaps you will be less quick to throw false accusations in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1298 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Take antibiotic resistance, for instance, which is commonly cited by evolution science as a sterling example of "evolution". Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species. So antibiotic resistance doesn't produce a more complex, more evolved organism than what was already there. The bugs that survive the antibiotic don't undergo any change to "become" resistant - they were already resistant. Yes, just look at antibiotic resistance. For resistance to beta-lactams like methicillin requires changes to a protein necessary for cell wall synthesis; macrolide resistance can occur from modification of the ribosome, essential in protein synthesis; quinolone resistance needs to modify a protein responsible for supercoiling of DNA to prevent damage of the DNA; and co-trimoxazole resistance involves changes to enzymes involved in the folic acid pathway, necessary for the bases used in DNA/RNA synthesis.These may not be a change in complexity, however you feel like measuring it, but they do represent modifications to pathways that are highly critical to the survival of the cell. If mutations can cause such significant changes without killing the organism, why is it so surprising that less significant changes in protein expression in multi-cellular organisms can result in the diversity we see in species today? Edited by Meddle, : No reason given. Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2357 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Sure... I can name real Christian Scientists who discovered the laws of our Creator..
(from http://whychristianity.com) Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets goingaround the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and Copernicus was urged to publish around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws ofplanetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centred system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled! Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solarsystem was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centred system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favourite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centred system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, he saw his system as concerning the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted. Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modernphilosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted was to see his philosophy adopted as standard Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science(including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding from the Bible God's plan for history. He did a lot of work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." Robert Boyle (1791-1867) One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gasses,and also wrote an important work on chemistry. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, "for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels."... As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity andmagnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. (From http://whychristianity.com) Michael Faraday (1791-1867) The son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricityand magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but has led to so much in our lifestyles today which depend on them (including computers and telephone lines and so Web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced upon him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. The Sandemanians originated from Presbyterians who had rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism".He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was the formation of the X-Club, dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science whilst, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution. Kelvin (William Thompson) (1824-1907) Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modernphysics. His work covered may areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities who recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating). Max Planck (1858-1947) Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which has revolutionizedour understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against scepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!" Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associatedwith major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (end of small excerpt) Can you name one intelligent evolutionist ? who has discovered any truth ? rather than those confirming evolutionary theory for research grants ? Jesus wins, real scientists win, evolutionists lose again.. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2357 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Wake up Theodore..
You have been lied to and pass on the BIG LIE. """"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.""" The truth is you excuse everything and make mistakes and mutations as your supposed creator, saying evolution did it, and then worship it or him or her, without question because it is your religion despite the facts. You have zero credibility except with the intimidated and the lazy and sloughful. Real scientists discover truths rather than maybe , should haves, might have fallcies. Evolution is the BIG LIE EvolutionisaBIGLIE Jesus wins Theodore, and you lose until you pick the winner and the truth. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Nope, that is completely untrue. When scientists refer to evolutionary theory they refer to genetic variation coupled with selection processes; with natural selection being very important. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Davidjay, you didn't answer the question. Let's remind you what the question was:
ringo writes: Can you name two or three hundred of those "real" scientists who don't accept evolution? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
So you refuse to actually address my post.
Please drop the spam links. You are in violation of forum rules. If those links have anything of substance, present it here.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sure... I can name real Christian Scientists who discovered the laws of our Creator.. You're claiming Einstein was a "real Christian Scientist"? Do you ever tell the truth?
Can you name one intelligent evolutionist ? who has discovered any truth ? Let's take the 72 Nobel Prize winners who acted as amici curiae in Edwards v. Aguilard, and who said that "the evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept." Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel
Laureates
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024