|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: Well, my definition is wrong and I have to admit to another mistake: I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but half an hour ago I discovered that I was wrong. Oh dear ... It's a conclusion flowing from the ToE. Why do you think you can comment so provocatively - and so erroneously - on the ToE and biology in genereal, without even a vague understanding of what it is?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Dredge writes: I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology. Let me re-order and rephrase that. You're opposed to the ToE because it contradicts the bible. The other two items are simply required beliefs created by the first.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2272 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that. See Evolution - Wikipedia
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2272 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a difference between the definition word Evolution as used in Biology and the definition of the Theory of Evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
CRR writes: You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that. See Evolution - Wikipedia What is it with you guys? What is it you're objecting to? No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory. It's a prediction/conclusion of the theory and it's obvious from the 'tree of life'. It doesn't mean that all life came from the very first life - although it may have done.
quote: Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What is not evident is any other explanation. Except special creation. How does special creation explain the nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix, the fact that each new species arises in close proximity to an ancestral population both in time and space? It doesn't. Special creation could happen anywhere anytime without constraint, but the Theory of Evolution is constrained and the evidence and empirical data conform to the constraint, not the lack of it. This is an epic fail of special creation.
To be good enough to be worthy of actual use as an explanation it must explain ALL aspects of the evidence. See Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography (1855) for more information. A hundred and fifty years later "The Law of Sarawak" still holds. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: Except special creation. Special Creation, like the flood and Exodus and Conquest of Canaan and Garden of Eden and Young Earth has been refuted by reality. Sorry Charlie but that's the facts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a difference between the definition word Evolution as used in Biology and the definition of the Theory of Evolution. That's not a problem. That's normal. There's also a difference between gravity and the theory of gravity. Evolution is heritable change in a population; the theory of evolution is how it happens, i.e. mutation, selection, drift, recombination, lateral gene transfer.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) ... What a strange phrase. Did you notice that it is entirely unsupported by the article you linked to, which was evidently written by sane people?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, of course, but the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor has no use in applied biology. And I never said it did.
Granted, but ToE is used to conclude that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Certainly, but that's not its definition, any more than one would define fingerprinting as "the technique that proves Jack murdered Fred".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So a number of questions occur to me.
First, you guys apparently wish to change the meaning of a well-defined English word. You know you can't do that, right? So why are you trying? Second, again, if we can't call evolution evolution, what should we call it? Instead of talking of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, we should call it ... what? Third, what would be the point if you did succeed in changing the language? Do you think this would affect any substantive point? Do you think it would bring one single person one step closer to believing the story about the talking snake? All creationist activity is in a sense futile, since creationists are, y'know, wrong. But this seems especially futile, in that you are trying to do something which would be impossible even if creationism was true, and which would be no help to you if you could do it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: You can call antibiotic resistance and example of "evolution" if you like, but I fail to see how it can be used as evidence to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That screeching sound you hear is you dragging the goal posts. The evolution of antibiotic resistance is an example of how the mechanisms of evolution work, namely the process of random mutation and natural selection.
Dredge writes: In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. That's completely false. Mutations only need to produce the limited information we see in living and fossil species.
The mutations seen in bacteria are like a merry-go-round ... they are constantly in motion but they don't actually go anywhere. If I showed you the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, could you determine which mutations were going somewhere? What criteria do you use to determine this?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dredge writes: Do you lack curiosity? It isn't worthwhile to sate our curiosity?
Please be advised that coming up with stories about how life was invented is nothing more than an historical curiosity. In other words, fossils are useful for embellishing a useless historical curiosity/theory that cannot be verified as fact. Big deal. Empty beer bottles are more useful than fossils. Fossils are the facts that verify the theory of evolution. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: No. Then you are using a double standard. Just because something is not directly applicable to medical science does not make it false.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dredge writes: I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology.I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology. First, you call evolution a myth because it contradicts your religious beliefs. You have demonstrated time and again that you don't even understand how science works. Second, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. The majority of Christians wolrdwide accept evolution.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024