Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
142 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 140 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,834 Year: 1,582/23,288 Month: 1,582/1,851 Week: 222/484 Day: 40/105 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 466 of 936 (806349)
04-24-2017 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2017 11:37 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Dr. Adequate: "Dredge was de-nouncing speciation ... just the other week."

Dredge confesses that his understanding of the definition of speciation was flawed.  Dredge now understands the definition of speciation and realizes that speciation is a fact - but he also realizes that speciation isn't evidence for the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2017 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2017 11:08 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 476 by CRR, posted 04-25-2017 1:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 467 of 936 (806350)
04-24-2017 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by CRR
04-23-2017 11:05 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Mr. Dobzhansky, why have you drooled this stupid lie?  Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology - that all life evolved from a common ancestor - or will ever depend on it. Science is defined by observation and experiments; so go away, silly atheist space cadet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by CRR, posted 04-23-2017 11:05 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Coyote, posted 04-24-2017 10:50 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 473 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2017 11:06 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 480 by Taq, posted 04-25-2017 10:53 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 484 by ringo, posted 04-25-2017 12:00 PM Dredge has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 468 of 936 (806351)
04-24-2017 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:45 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Science is defined by observation and experiments...

Whereas religion is defined by belief in ancient (or sometimes even modern) folk tales, often in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

(Pots should be wary of calling the kettle black...)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:45 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Dredge, posted 04-25-2017 11:51 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 469 of 936 (806352)
04-24-2017 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by CRR
04-23-2017 3:23 AM


Re: Abiogenesis
I take your point.  When you think about it, inanimate matter becoming animate matter is a form of evolution.  

  But I understand atheists' reluctance to tackle abiogenesis and their insistence on separating it from evolution - even the vivid imaginations of atheist scientists can't come up with an plausible explanation.  So best to separate it and sweep it under the carpet; out of sight and out of mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by CRR, posted 04-23-2017 3:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2017 10:58 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 470 of 936 (806353)
04-24-2017 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Percy
04-23-2017 9:02 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Thank you. Percy, for this clear and concise explanation.  Since, as you say, the antibiotic doesn't change the way bacteria populations mutate, how is it possible to determine if particular post-antibiotic mutations are due to the antibiotic or due to "natural" mutations (that may have occurred without the antibiotic)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Percy, posted 04-23-2017 9:02 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2017 11:00 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 479 by Percy, posted 04-25-2017 8:49 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 471 of 936 (806354)
04-24-2017 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:51 PM


Re: Abiogenesis
I take your point. When you think about it, inanimate matter becoming animate matter is a form of evolution.

Nope.

But I understand atheists' reluctance to tackle abiogenesis and their insistence on separating it from evolution - even the vivid imaginations of atheist scientists can't come up with an plausible explanation. So best to separate it and sweep it under the carpet; out of sight and out of mind.

What an interesting fantasy world you live in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:51 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 472 of 936 (806355)
04-24-2017 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:57 PM


Re: If Not, What?
Thank you. Percy, for this clear and concise explanation. Since, as you say, the antibiotic doesn't change the way bacteria populations mutate, how is it possible to determine if particular post-antibiotic mutations are due to the antibiotic or due to "natural" mutations (that may have occurred without the antibiotic)?

That's easy. None of them is "due to the antibiotic" because evolution doesn't work that way.

You ... you really don't know anything about evolution, do you? So why are you discussing it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:57 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:29 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 473 of 936 (806356)
04-24-2017 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:45 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Mr. Dobzhansky, why have you drooled this stupid lie? Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology - that all life evolved from a common ancestor - or will ever depend on it. Science is defined by observation and experiments; so go away, silly atheist space cadet.

Your petulant anger at people who know more than you do is most amusing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:45 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 474 of 936 (806357)
04-24-2017 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:41 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Dredge confesses that his understanding of the definition of speciation was flawed. Dredge now understands the definition of speciation and realizes that speciation is a fact

You're welcome. I wonder how long it will take me to disabuse you of all your other naive misconceptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:41 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 475 of 936 (806358)
04-25-2017 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by JonF
04-24-2017 7:59 AM


Off-topic - Geologist that switched to YEC
JonF writes:

CRR writes:

Here's one example of a secular trained geologist who made the switch to YEC.

That appears to be one. One is not impressive. Any more, or is that all?

Way off-topic subthreads should best be let die, but here I go with a reply (poetic even).

Re: http://creation.com/dr-ron-neller

quote:
Ron holds a B.A. (Hons) and a Ph.D., both in fluvial geomorphology.

I'm pretty dubious about a B.A. in fluvial geomorphology (do B.A. degrees get specialized, much less that specialized?).

Anyway, I'll buy into the Ph.D. But I do note, that he is in a rather "shallow" specialty. Looking at surface processes is rather removed from considering the "deeper" matters.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by JonF, posted 04-24-2017 7:59 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 631 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 476 of 936 (806359)
04-25-2017 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:41 PM


Definition of species
"Dredge confesses that his understanding of the definition of speciation was flawed."

Don't worry, Dredge, Even Mayr's Biological Species Concept has its problems as the following Wikipedia article shows.

Attempts at definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Attempts_at_definition

Biologists and taxonomists have made many attempts to define species, beginning from morphology and moving towards genetics. Early taxonomists such as Linnaeus had no option but to describe what they saw: this was later formalised as the typological or morphological species concept. Mayr emphasised reproductive isolation, but this, like other species concepts, is hard or even impossible to test.[60][61] Later biologists have tried to refine Mayr's definition with the recognition and cohesion concepts, among others.[62] Many of the concepts are quite similar or overlap, so they are not easy to count: the biologist R. L. Mayden recorded about 24 concepts,[63] and the philosopher of science John Wilkins counted 26.[60]

Like Linnaeus, Darwin was using a morphological species concept rather than Mayr's Biological Species Concept. Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:

No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#The_species_problem

Not only can hybrids form between recognised species, they can form cross genera, although as far as I know, only genera within the one family. This actually is consistent with the idea that the kinds from the Ark have subdivided into sub-groups that we have later classified as different genera and species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:41 PM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Pressie, posted 04-25-2017 5:05 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 482 by Taq, posted 04-25-2017 11:01 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 477 of 936 (806364)
04-25-2017 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by JonF
04-24-2017 7:59 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
Hey, JohnF, that guy mentioned by CRR is a Geographer, not a Geologist. He was trained as a Geographer and alledgedly did his PhD in Geography. Geomorphology. Not Geology.

Anyway, from those sources provided by CRR it seems that he did Geography, then joined some cult, then dropped his job and started working for CMI. Not very impressive. He was not convinced by the evidence, but by his cult.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by JonF, posted 04-24-2017 7:59 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 478 of 936 (806365)
04-25-2017 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by CRR
04-25-2017 1:43 AM


Re: Definition of species
This one is just as funny.

CRR writes:

Like Linnaeus, Darwin was using a morphological species concept rather than Mayr's Biological Species Concept. Darwin wrote in On the Origin of Species:

No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#The_species_problem

Not only can hybrids form between recognised species, they can form cross genera, although as far as I know, only genera within the one family. This actually is consistent with the idea that the kinds from the Ark have subdivided into sub-groups that we have later classified as different genera and species.

You do know that the species problem is a big problem for creationists, don't you? No fixed boundaries between "kinds" and all that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by CRR, posted 04-25-2017 1:43 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19321
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 479 of 936 (806376)
04-25-2017 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:57 PM


Re: If Not, What?
Dredge writes:

Since, as you say, the antibiotic doesn't change the way bacteria populations mutate, how is it possible to determine if particular post-antibiotic mutations are due to the antibiotic or due to "natural" mutations (that may have occurred without the antibiotic)?

Few reproductive events produce perfect copying of the genetic material, hence copying almost always produces mutations, and they are random with respect to adaptation. Mutations are always occurring in bacterial populations, including mutations that would protect against an antibiotic. When an antibiotic is added then bacteria with a protective mutation have an advantage.

Mutations continue to occur after the antibiotic is added, but I'm not aware of any evidence for whether they they are different in character from before the antibiotic was added. Mutations generally are random copying errors and can occur anywhere and be of any of a number of different types. Again, mutations are random with regard to adaptation. Likely the frequency and severity of mutations increases in populations under stress.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:57 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8218
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 480 of 936 (806385)
04-25-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Dredge
04-24-2017 10:45 PM


Re: Dobzhansky
Dredge writes:

Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology

First, evolution is not an atheist theology. "Atheist theology" is an oxymoron to begin with.

Second, evolution is used in applied biology, such as in the application of the theory to predict protein function.

"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny
and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy."
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~bee/pubs/sifter-plos.pdf

Science is defined by observation and experiments; so go away, silly atheist space cadet.

Evolution is evidenced by multiple observations, such as the observed nested hierarchy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 10:45 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Dredge, posted 04-27-2017 3:04 AM Taq has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020