|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Dredge writes: Evolutionary biologist, on the other hand, don't concern themselves with the real world; Evolutionary biologists concern themselves with the distribution of characteristics in modern species, fossils, genomes of living species, and the mechanisms of embryonic development. All of these are parts of the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
CRR writes: 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. First off, families and genera are human constructs and are not real things. If humans wanted to, they could put chimps and humans in the same genus or in separate orders. It is completely up to us since taxonomy is something made up by humans. Second, hybrids don't change the basic concept of the importance of speciation within the theory of evolution. The very fact that you call them hybrids between two species drives this point home. Why don't you call them the same species? The problem with semantic arguments like the one you are using is that you lose sight of the real world. The theory of evolution is trying to explain the real world, and sometimes the real world doesn't fit into nice little neat categories that humans prefer. The IMPORTANT concept is how populations diverge, not black and white definitions that have no exceptions. When there is a barrier between free gene flow between populations, what happens? What we see is that different mutations accumulate in the different populations. This causes them to diverge over time. If there is very limited gene flow between the populations, there is still divergence. This is why isolated hybrids aren't a problem for the theory or for the concept of speciation. In trying to get your "goctha" moment, you have lost sight of what theories are meant to do: explain nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
After being HERE awhile, I must admit, that a second word can be added to the definition of evolution, semantics.
Its a combination of luck and semantics, evolutionary mutational luck involves the supposed changes, and evolutionary semantics covers all evolutions missing links and errors. Evolutionists define and re-define as linquists, even though their concept is fictional and very very elusive and non-existant. Lucky Semantics Luck and Semantics Semantic Luck Double Speak Semantics and Lucky Words Any of the above, are good definitions of evolution. But simply LUCK covers this theory in one concise word. In the Beginning (of Evolutionist's Creation) was the WORD, and the word was LUCK. And they praised LUCK for their word. Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.. 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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Why single out "applied" biology? How can you "apply" biology without a solid understanding of the foundations of biology? Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology - that all life evolved from a common ancestor - or will ever depend on it. What Dobzhansky said is the equivalent of, "Nothing in aviation makes sense except in the light of aerodynamics." You seem to be implying that you can build and fly aircraft without understanding aerodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
You seem to be implying that you can build and fly aircraft without understanding aerodynamics. Which is true to a point, right. You don't really have to know why a wing is shaped like it is in order to build one. But you couldn't do it without all the work people put into laying the foundation for such things, which allows you to just do the "applied" work. I think this is a really good analogy. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Well, David, that was bullshit wasn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2329 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Again, Doc, keep your feces out of your posting. If you're going to reproduce anything worthwhile you are going to have to turn around..... IYKWIM
But you probably wont understand what I have just said, because it involves reproduction and reproduction or multiplication is the first commandment of the Lord, to recreate and make the world frutiful via the S word. But this cant be discussed HERE because it needs to be a mature audience. But againthe S word could not possibly have mutated simultaneously together at the same time to produce offspring magically, waiting for a billion years of mutational change for fertility. Jesus wins again Be fruitful and multiply, Feces postings will not get the job done.. 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:
|
Well, David, that was also bullshit, wasn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Davidjay writes: Its a combination of luck and semantics, evolutionary mutational luck involves the supposed changes, and evolutionary semantics covers all evolutions missing links and errors. What is "supposed" about mutations? We can directly sequence the genomes of parents and their offspring, and count the number of mutations that offspring are born with. We can directly observe mutations happening. Why do you have to deny reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Davidjay writes: But againthe S word could not possibly have mutated simultaneously together at the same time to produce offspring magically, waiting for a billion years of mutational change for fertility. What in the world are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Whereas religion is defined by ..... If changing the subject is the best you can do, then you've lost the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
The medical profession ... has every reason to concern itself with phenomena such as the evolution of bacteria which threaten human health Name one use of medical science that depends on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Name one use of medical science that depends on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. You seem a little confused, Dredge. I did not say "There is a use of medical science that depends on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor". What I said was: "The medical profession concerns itself with the real world - to wit: helping the sick; it has every reason to concern itself with phenomena such as the evolution of bacteria which threaten human health, which is why looking at medical journals reveals that they do in fact concern themselves with this." If you can't refute this, which you obviously can't, then trying to change the subject is no substitute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Name one use of medical science that depends on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. Not one use of medical science depends on the theory that the Sun is fueled by a fusion reaction at its core. Does this refute the theory that the Sun is fueled by fusion power?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024