|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes: Before Darwin, species were thought to be immutable and not related. Yes, ok, but what difference has believing Darwin's yarn made to anything in the real world? None at all, as far as I can tell. Darwin's theory is as irrelevant to real-world biology as a fairy tale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
At the risk of repeating myself, imo, Darwin contributed nothing to biology that could be considered useful. I could demonstrate this point by becoming a competent biologist. despite being a creationist who rejects Darwinism outright.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Dredge writes: The atheist currency of a deceived society. Charles Darwin is the most overrated figure in history. He contributed nothing worthwhile to biology. Careful, you delusion is showing... Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch, 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' The arguments of the ignorant. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
This is how I know that you're delusional and that your arguments are really, really stupid.
Your "argument" starts like this:
Dredge writes: Yes, ok, but what difference has believing Darwin's... Your arguments are stupid as I don't believe in Darwin nor his arguments. At all. You are clueless. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes: Your argument starts like this: ... Please explain.
I don't believe in Darwin nor his arguments. At all. This sounds interesting. Please tell me more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Chicko agrees with me. Are you going to call him "ignorant" as well?
------------------------------ Your comparison to Monty Python is fabulous! What has Darwinism ever done for us? Can I use this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Please give me one example of how Darwinism has made facts more useful. By "useful" I mean useful in a practical sense, ie, applied science - as opposed to useless atheist bedtime stories such as whales supposedly evolving from deers. I see what you did there. The Heinlein quote includes, "... a valid theory organises (facts) into a far greater usefulness." You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition for "useful" being just practical or applied science. That's pretty dishonest. The value of a theory is in helping us organize and understand facts. For example, the various theories of electromagnetism let us understand what's going on, and from there engineers and inventors can figure out some practical applications.
Coyote writes: But to discredit a scientific theory requires evidence ... As far as I can ascertain, the aim of the topic is to discuss the contribution the theory of evolution has made to our understanding of biology. I contend that Darwinism has contributed nothing at all to the advancement of our understanding of biology in any practical sense. Imo, all Darwinism has done is provide a pseudo-scientific creation story for atheists. As a tool that can be utilised by biologists, it's useless, as far as I know. So if you ask me, the claim that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution is perhaps the greatest load of bs ever told in science. Nobody is asking creationists to be the judges of science. They are completely unqualified. For religious reasons creationists choose to reject whole fields of science, and in many cases they do their best to discredit those sciences. Your posts alone show this. Why should we pay any attention to such anti-science nitpicking?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I could demonstrate this point by becoming a competent biologist. despite being a creationist who rejects Darwinism outright. I have no doubt that you could. My brother is a competent veterinarian and is also a YEC, but he certainly accepts the evolution of resistance and disease. One of my lab mates is a YEC and I believe he will make a competent scientist... however, when we talk about the phylogeny of the organism he works with and determining its evolutionary history in the context of disease management and detection, he is right on board. Of course, Creationists/ IDists will argue that those issues are completely compatible with their hypothesis (which ever particular brand it may be) and represent "microevolution" or some other definition that attempts to downplay the significance of the contribution of evolutionary biology, but that completely misses the point. It is evolutionary biology that developed those ideas not "creation theory." Creationists accept evolutionary theory up to a point and object to certain aspects which they perceive as objectionable such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins. So creationists/ IDists try to redefine words and concepts so that they can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable. For example, one of the creationists here recently stated that the modern Felidae species descended from a common ancestor that had been preserved on the ark. But... that this is an example of "microevolution," which is, quite frankly, very dumb... an entire family of very diverse species descending from a common ancestor is clearly, by definition, "macroevolution." So creationists accept "macroevolution" but don't want to admit it so they change the definitions. Another example is including universal common descent in the definition of evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection (or descent with modification). It is the process by which different organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. NOTE: the word "process" in that second part of the definition! Evolution or the ToE is the process of diversification not the diversification itself. So let's accept that the entire family Felidae descended from a common ancestor. What was the process by which that happened? Evolution. Evolution is the process that scientists study and understand fairly well (there is still a lot yet to learn) and think it explains the diversification of the Felidae. So it is inconsequential to the theory or to the definition of evolution if Felidae and Canidae are related by common ancestry or not (maybe both "kinds" began through an act of special creation). Either way, the theory is supposed to explain the diversification of those groups. Now, what we need to recognize is that if a pair of felines did survive on the ark and founded the current population of Felidae a mere 4,400 years ago, that would be, for the most part, incompatible with the ToE. An alternate model for diversification would need to be put forward. The closest answer to that I have seen is the idea that all the diversity was "built in" to the original pair. But I don't see that model as being compatible with the data and at this point, it is pretty much unworkable.
Darwin contributed nothing to biology that could be considered useful... who rejects Darwinism outright. This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon, not an evolutionary religious tradition. Darwin is mentioned on the first day of Evolutionary Biology courses for about 5 minutes and then the discussion moves on to other historical figures. While Darwin was generally correct in his theory, and he deserves recognition as the grandfather of evolutionary theory, we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution any more, we have moved way beyond the topics that Darwin discussed. Darwin is not the "evolutionist's patron saint," it is creationists that are obsessed with Darwin. Personally, I accept that life was "intelligently designed" and I accept and believe that the God of the Bible is the Creator of all seen and unseen. Yet I believe that evolution is the process that God used to create. I would say, form a personal position, that God "causes" a flower to grow and bloom, and yet that is not the process he uses to do so. The process by which flowers develop and bloom can be explored and understood. This does not diminish my belief that God is the ultimate "cause" but my belief that God is the "cause" does not create a roadblock to my scientific curiosity and investigation. They are two separate but yet also inseparable things, if that makes sense... ID and creation science do not offer any alternative to evolutionary theory, they only try to pick apart the theory and assume their premise (intelligent design or special creation) is true by default if evolution is false. In my mind, all they do is create a false dichotomy that does nothing to promote understand in biology. Science is the study of natural processes, such as flower development and evolutionary development. Creationist's and IDist's rhetoric places road blocks to understanding those processes. It's quite OK to object to particular aspects, such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins, but changing and manipulating the definitions doesn't help your case at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I especially like this statement
The value of a theory is in helping us organize and understand facts. -------
You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition for "useful" being just practical or applied science. When discussing science with creationists, about 90% of the time is spent on definitions (attempts to change them or misunderstandings of them) and logical fallacies (both their accusations of logical fallacies and their own implementation of logical fallacies). Yawn... rarely a robust discussion of science. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HBD writes: Dredge writes: I could demonstrate this point by becoming a competent biologist. despite being a creationist who rejects Darwinism outright. I have no doubt that you could. My brother is a competent veterinarian and is also a YEC, but he certainly accepts the evolution of resistance and disease. One of my lab mates is a YEC and I believe he will make a competent scientist... however, when we talk about the phylogeny of the organism he works with and determining its evolutionary history in the context of disease management and detection, he is right on board. Of course, Creationists/ IDists will argue that those issues are completely compatible with their hypothesis (which ever particular brand it may be) and represent "microevolution" or some other definition that attempts to downplay the significance of the contribution of evolutionary biology, but that completely misses the point. It is evolutionary biology that developed those ideas not "creation theory." Creationists accept evolutionary theory up to a point and object to certain aspects which they perceive as objectionable such as universal common descent and non-teleological origins. So creationists/ IDists try to redefine words and concepts so that they can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable. For example, one of the creationists here recently stated that the modern Felidae species descended from a common ancestor that had been preserved on the ark. But... that this is an example of "microevolution," which is, quite frankly, very dumb... an entire family of very diverse species descending from a common ancestor is clearly, by definition, "macroevolution." So creationists accept "macroevolution" but don't want to admit it so they change the definitions. This is a horrible injustice to YECs. The concept of intraspecies variation was quite clear even in Darwin's day. When Darwin extended the principles of variation beyond the species a new name was needed for what was already understood to be normal intraspecies variation, or descent with modification confined to the species, so it was the ToE that forced the redefinition to "microevolution" to keep the distinction clear. It's the ToE that imposes the idea of "macroevolution" on us, it's the ToE that has done all the redefining. All evolution from the Ark IS microevolution, intraspecies variation built into the genome of the Kind, or descent with modification within the Kind; it's the ToE that forces the idea of macroevolution on us. It's a major headache now just to try to say what you mean when talking about these things. Speciation is now defined as macroevolution, and in fact it's aggressively insisted upon when you try to make a creationist point about it. While some creationists will accept that definition for the sake of communication with evos it makes for all kinds of confusion when you want to discuss the fact that genetically the new "macroevolved" "species" is still the same species that has merely lost the ability to breed with the parent population, as I'm always trying to do. And that's all you're doing here. You're insisting on a definition that has nothing to do with the reality of the actual genetic situation which is INTRASPECIES variation, or microevolution. I believe there is a natural barrier to variation beyond the species as I've argued millions of times here already, based on loss of genetic "information" through any kind of selection from natural selection to reduced population size for any reason. Alleles are lost with these population reductions, which is necessary to the formation of new phenotypes. I also reject mutation as contributing anything beneficial or in any way furthering evolution, so I'd like to stay out of that morass here if I can, but I think my reasoning holds up just fine. Genetically you CAN'T get from one species to another, all variation is only possible within the genome, period. Dredge is quite right, the ToE is utterly useless on a practical level. All the useful stuff comes from the knowledge of how species vary within their own genome, the rest is all fantasy. And the reason YECs can be competent biologists is just that, all the useful knowledge agrees with YEC assumptions. Maybe I'll come back to try to deal with the rest of your post. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It is also true that there were some very wrong "creationist" ideas that Darwin did in fact deal with effectively. Special creation was one that completely violates the Biblical account; another was the immutability of species, despite the fact that it has always been apparent that species vary from generation to generation. Those errors did need to be corrected and should not be denied.
But Darwin's "solution" created far worse problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2349 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Drudge stated ..... At the risk of repeating myself, imo, Darwin contributed nothing to biology that could be considered useful. I could demonstrate this point by becoming a competent biologist. despite being a creationist who rejects Darwinism outright.(end of excerpt) Yes, totally agree, the theory of evolution contributes nothing to our knowledge of biology, NOTHING, luck and chance does not solve problems or become a law, that helps in any other field or even in biology. Well said and agreed upon..Evolution is useless. 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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Yes, totally agree, the theory of evolution contributes nothing to our knowledge of biology Says three persons who do not work in any biological field nor have biological training, which is in direct opposition to what people say who actually work in the field and have advanced training. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2349 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
Says three persons who do not work in any biological field nor have biological training, which is in direct opposition to what people say who actually work in the field and have advanced training. HBD
Biologists today are in corporations and government, and are products of the school systems that produce graduates for money making purposes..... and hence produce only evolutionists that feed their economic system. Because they demand compliance to their theory of evolution. Consequently evolutionists are not open minded. They are in the business of making money off their theory....and trying to demand compliance from all other thinkers. Mind you I graduated in Biology, after appealing a fail in comparative biology a third level course, and the dean passed me because I knew the facts, rather than their theory. WE should really study the 'Origins of Evolution' in a new PROPOSED TOPIC 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. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
Biologists today are in corporations and government, and are products of the school systems that produce graduates for money making purposes..... and hence produce only evolutionists that feed their economic system. So on the one hand, you argue that evolution is meaningless to the science of biology - and then on the other hand you argue that there is a conspiracy to teach evolution for money making purposes. How, pray tell, can evolution make money, if it is meaningless to the (extremely lucrative) field of commercially applied biology ?Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024