|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The breeding example is one that always provides me a chuckle.
Sheep existed before they were being bred domestically. Sheep still exist that have not been bred domestically. Both evolved and it's actually possible to genetically tell if a sample is from a wild or domestic sheep. Pigs existed before they were being bred domestically. Pigs still exist that have not been bred domestically. Both evolved and it's actually possible to genetically tell if a sample is from a wild or domestic pig. Canines existed before they were being bred domestically. Canines still exist that have not been bred domestically. Both evolved and it's actually possible to genetically tell if a sample is from a wild or domestic canine. And we can go on and on, species after species, animal after animal including the human animals. Evolution is a fact. So far there are no signs that there is some limitation to evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The essence of Faith's argument is to redefine evolution in a way that has never occurred to anyone before, nor likely will again. To avoid confusion I shall use the term Evolution to refer to Faith's definition, and evolution to refer to the conventional definition.
So, Evolution, according to Faith, consists entirely and exclusively of processes which produce homogeneity and eventually stasis in a population, as exemplified by the actions of breeders trying to maintain the purity of a breed of dog or cat. Clearly Evolution so defined must eventually come to a halt when it has eliminated all the genetic diversity in a population. It follows that the origin of a new trait, which might be the beginning of a new breed or even the first step towards a new species, is not Evolution --- indeed, is the very opposite of Evolution. And so the production of new species from old is not Evolution. (It is of course evolution). In Faith's own words:
If you add diversity after you have a new species as a result of evolution/selection/reduction of genetic diversity, you simply lose your species. It's no longer the same species. You may get something else, even another species eventually, but you'll have lost the species originally selected. This isn't evolution." [By which she means that it isn't Evolution] So, for example, the evolution of humans from australopithecenes is not Evolution, and it would be true --- by definition! --- to say that the one did not Evolve from the other. Of course, what creationists want to prove is that the one did not evolve from the other, and Faith's argument does not even begin to touch on this question. But thanks to her definition of Evolve, she can prove something which is pronounced the same as the thing creationists want to prove. Imagine a man who wants to prove that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy. After many long months wrestling with the evidence and getting nowhere, a heaven-sent argument occurs to him. He will take the assassination of Julius Caesar to be so paradigmatic of assassination as to be definitional of it. To be Assassinated, he declares, is to be stabbed to death in the Roman Senate House in 44 BC. He can now prove that Oswald did not and could not have Assassinated Kennedy. Of course, he is not a step nearer proving that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy, which was his original goal, but he can prove that Oswald didn't Assassinate Kennedy, which is pronounced the same as the thing he originally wanted to prove.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Amazing Dr. Adequate, made a post of more than one sentence.
I dont agree with it, but am encouraged that she is trying to answer FAITH, and actually must have studied the indocrination and forced theory of evolution. But lets get back to definitions...... rather than math and facts. Definitions are linguistic, but sometimes they do set boundaries if agreed upon. The problem being, linquistic Bachelor of Arts evolutionists tend to switch definitions, or evolve their definitions, to try and incorporate truths or narrow truths or big lies in narrow definitions, so they in time can say they actually have truths. Its a slippery road they hoe and use, so the definition of evolution has to be concrete and solid and accepted by all. No one has differed that evolution is by CHANCE so I say its accepted definition by all, is LUCK or if you like CHANCE. 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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No one has differed that evolution is by CHANCE so I say its accepted definition by all, is LUCK or if you like CHANCE Whom do you hope to deceive by drooling out this stupid lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No one has differed that evolution is by CHANCE so I say its accepted definition by all, is LUCK or if you like CHANCE Many have differed. Ignoring the responses doesn't change that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
This is a very impressive list ... of bogus Darwinist claims. If you investigate each of these items you will find that they are either theoretical (with no practical application to living organisms) or are uses that would have been discovered if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution. None of them depend in any way on the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from single-cell organism.
In other words, this is just more mendacious bs from Darwinists and their irrelevant space-cadet biology (aka atheist theology). You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
CRR: "it is an example of microevolution ... quite similar to antibiotic resistance".
Exactly! I presented this very same example on another site specialising in biology and was told it was an "excellent example of natural selection". But who knows how anyone can see "evolution" in it because1) the genetic makeup of the surviving redheads is EXACTLY THE SAME as the genetic makeup of the redheads before they were exposed to the toxin, and 2) the gene pool of the original population has been seriously diminished as a result of the effect of the toxin - which is DEVOLUTION not evolution! Show a Darwinist a chicken and he sees a feathered dinosaur; show a Darwinist an example of natural selection and he sees all life evolved from a single-cell organism. Biology for space cadets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
In other words, the only part of the Bounoure quote that I supplied that is in queston is the part about him working for the CNRS, which the letter doesn't actually state is untrue, as it merely says, "as far as we know".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Evolutionists, having hijacked the science of biology, like to think they own it and have re-defined it in their own image. But the truth is, ToE will only ever be an irrelevant little subset of real biology.
ToE is like a parasite riding on the back of an elephant (true biology) - the parasite needs the elephant, but the elephant doesn't need the parasite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Kill that infidel, Bouroune! He blasphemes against our god of evolution!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Caffeine: "mutation is needed to account for existing genetic diversity".
No problem; God can do mutations. He's an expert on stuff like that - he created the entire universe out of nothing and all life on earth in six days, remember? So a few mutations here and there to move things along would be a cinch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "Stop making stuff up."
Ok, please give me a brief explanation of how you think the process of antibiotic reistance works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
In post #162 I noticed this statement: "an appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine.". This is an fine example of the mendacious nonsense Darwinists peddle to order to pump up their useless theory to look relevant, important and true.
The truth of the matter is, every discovery that scientists have made that has proved useful in improving human health would have been made if no one had ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory. For example, the principal of natural selection has been applied by humans for thousands of years; the discovery of vaccines could just have easily have been made by a creationist who completely rejects ToE. ToE is nothing more than useless atheist theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. As pointed out on another thread, this is impossible within your model of history. Some genes have literally thousands of different alleles in the modern human population. One individual human can carry no more than two. If humanity originiated from two people; or from a few people after the flood, then mutation is required to account for existing genetic diversity. Yes I understand the problem and have answered it before in terms of the possibility that there is or once was a process like mutation that created these alternatives. HOWEVER, it really depends on whether they are viable alternatives that actually do something to further variation, and since most mutations are not beneficial there's lots of room for doubt about that. If they at least succeed in not destroying the function of the gene perhaps most of them do no harm. In the current generation anyway. But it's possible all those "alleles" are nothing but useless mutations that contribute nothing to the health of the species, let alone evolution. This is the view I'm currently leaning toward. By the way I was watching an interview on You Tube earlier with Dr. J C Sanford, a creationist who wrote the book "Genetic Entropy" which argues that eventually human beings will die out because of gene death, due to all the mutations we all accumulate in every generation, some of which we also pass on to our children. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
Dr. Adequate: "Stop making stuff up." Ok, please give me a brief explanation of how you think the process of antibiotic reistance works. He says that when he doesn't have an Adequate reply. I have gotten it several times.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024