|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Pressie writes: Then, who's Kirk Dunstan? Does he know anything about biology? Most likely Kirk Durston, the Power To Change Ministries marketeer. He is a Creationist PhD Candidate in computational biophysics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: Now I know that some people will object to including abiogenesis in the definition but I think it is an essential part of the thinking of most evolutionary biologists and inseparable from evolution. That is your assertion yet it seems most evolutionary biologists consider them as two separate subjects which is why they created the terms evolution and abiogenesis instead of just using the one term evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: I think the term abiogenesis was coined by Thomas Huxley after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and formulated the Law of Biogenesis. At that time there was no intention to separate abiogenesis from evolution. Which even if true would be totally irrelevant to how the terms are used today. Stop trying to play childish carny con games here or at least try to find some we have not been laughing at for decades. Your definition has nothing to do with how the term is used or to Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
hbd writes: Aw, sweet. I found a picture of evolution. And, just as in reality, the House wins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: Darwinists insist - perhaps in some futile quest for meaning - that evolution is not the result of a series of random accidents, because is it all controlled by natural selection. Only ignorant Creationists make such silly claims. No one familiar with either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution would make so stupid a statement.
Dredge writes: If life is to be fashioned from a collection of atoms, it can happen in only two ways - by design or by random accidents. Design requires intelligence, but natural selection doesn't have intelligence so cannot design, therefore there is no element of design in the process of evolution. Bullshit. Sorry but that is just another stupid assertion.
Dredge writes: This means evolution is purely the result of the only other option - random accidents - sheer, blind, mindless luck, in other words. Nope, seems you are wrong yet again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
CRR writes: There is nothing in that definition that I, as a Young Earth Creationist, would object to. It is not the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution that refutes Young Earth Creationism but rather the Bible and reality that show that position is simply absurd. First, there is not just one creation myth in the Bible but at least two and they disagree on the order of creation, the method of creation and even the description of the God characters. In addition, reality shows that the order listed in either fable are simply wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Dredge writes: Instead of just grunting, "Bullshit" (as per usual), please offer an explaination of how life could be fashioned if not by either design or chance. It can be evolved. Maybe you have heard that term before. Many mutations are random but selection is not. Anything might happen but everything then gets tested. No design needed. But also not pure chance. The beauty in reality is that there is not one test but rather an infinite number of tests that in turn vary over time and location. The result is the variety of living things seen today and throughout history and not the foolish bumbling see in the creation myth in Genesis 2 & 3 or the absurd one and done found in the much later Genesis 1 myth. But wait, there's more. The evolutionary system keeps those things that work as long as they work, discards those things that don't allow the critter to live long enough to reproduce and so results in continuous iterations of adaptability. Evolution makes sense. Biblical Creationism is simply stupid, sophomoric. Edited by jar, : appalin tense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: I thought I said beneficial mutations were extremely RARE and subject to doubts. They are not subject to doubt by anyone that is either honest or at least not willfully ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: ... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism Which is once again wrong. Evolution is simply change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the reality of change over time seen. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about origins. BUT Wait!!!!!! There's more. All of the evidence shows that the earliest forms of life were at most very simple, a few or even single cell organism. Not just some of the evidence but rather all of the evidence of early life. So that is a reasonable conclusion unrelated to either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh "Change over time" works just fine as long as it is understood by those who are not willfully ignorant, deluded or dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive. Or until conditions (natural selection) changes and they become advantageous. Or until additional mutations happen and they become advantageous. Or they just hang around and have no effect at all. Sheesh Faith. Stop being willfully ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Oh yes it is. Shall we do a few rounds of no-it-isn't-yes-it-is? You can do that if you want, the rest of us will simply point out that the process of evolution has been going on her on Earth for billions of years with no indication of it slowing or stopping. You can try playground games, the rest of us will simply point to the facts and reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: This might come as a shock to you, but a solid understanding of the foundations of biology doesn't require the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Yet all the evidence seems to show that life did begin with a common ancestor. There is the evidence that for millions and millions of years the only life was simple single celled organisms. Then there is the genetic evidence showing common ancestry. What is not evident is any other explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024