Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 121 of 1311 (808016)
05-08-2017 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by herebedragons
05-05-2017 9:48 AM


herebedragons writes:
so they (creationists/IDists) can keep the parts that work and reject the parts they find objectionable
It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
we pretty much don't study Darwinian evolution anymore
Gee, I wonder why not? - could it have something to with the fact that it's pointless wasting time on a theory that's perfectly useless?
This obsession with Darwin is a creationist phenomenon.
Really? In that case,please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world?
Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so?
It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think?
-------------------------------------
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 9:48 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2017 3:46 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 8:02 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 126 by jar, posted 05-08-2017 8:42 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2017 10:47 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:39 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2017 11:05 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 122 of 1311 (808018)
05-08-2017 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by herebedragons
05-05-2017 11:11 AM


Re: Darwin
herebedragons writes:
Says three persons who do not work in any biological field or have any biological training
And Albert Einstein was a patents clerk, so what could he have possibly have known about physics?
If you don't like the message ... shoot the messenger.
---------------------------------------
Speaking for myself, re my education, I'll have you know it took my a mere twelve years to complete seven years of primary school education. You've got to admit that that's pretty impressive. After primary school I joined the work force and became a patents clerk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by herebedragons, posted 05-05-2017 11:11 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:42 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 123 of 1311 (808020)
05-08-2017 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Coyote
05-05-2017 9:16 AM


Re: Science and theories
Coyote writes:
I see what you did there .... That's pretty dishonest'
What are you talking about? I merely asked how Darwinism has made facts more useful. My definition of "useful" is useful to applied science.
Stop playing evasive word-games and try and answer the question.
You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition of "useful" being practical or applied science
Please give me an example of a "useful" scientific fact that is outside the realm of applied science.
For example, the various theories of electromagnetism...
More evasion. I asked for an example of how Darwinism has made facts more useful - what does electromagnetism have to do with Darwinism?
Why should we pay any attention to such anti-science nitpicking?
In other words, your waving a white flag - you can't tell me how Darwinism has contributed to science in any practical, real-world sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 05-05-2017 9:16 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:45 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 124 of 1311 (808024)
05-08-2017 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM


quote:
It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
  —Dredge
You have been shown how the ToE is useful to science, simply repeating that it isn't to creationist loonies isn't going to change that.
quote:
Gee, I wonder why not? - could it have something to with the fact that it's pointless wasting time on a theory that's perfectly useless?
We don't study Darwin's work because it's 150 years old. It's history. He discovered the ideas that are now fundamental to all biology, but his book is not the bible - I'm prepared to bet that less than 1 in a thousand biologists have even read it. They're too busy reading modern stuff.
quote:
Really? In that case, please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world?
That would be because the ToE is fundamental to all biology. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be taught would it? Perhaps your premise is wrong?
quote:
Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so?
There's nothing like leading with your chin is there? It's because people that are forced to deny proven scientific facts for purely religious reasons are worthy of riddicule.
quote:
It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think?
It seems to me that you have no knowledge of the scientific community. Darwin is just interesting history. It's probably fair to say that the ToE is barely mentioned outside teaching - evolution as a process is embedded in the biological regime - it's the organising principle behind all their work, but like oxygen is to breathing, it's simply taken for granted.
Only a few weirdo religious fanatics are obsessed by it. And only because it interferes with their children's story book.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM Dredge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 125 of 1311 (808031)
05-08-2017 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM


The Age of the Earth
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
In your opinion. Of course opinions incompatible with reality are delusions ... if you want to discuss this further you can join me at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
So let's start with Message 1 on that thread and see where reality leads us:
We see many creationists saying that dating methods are not accurate and are prone to errors. The problem is that these methods all correlate with each other in many rather astounding ways, given that they are based on very different mechanisms.
To address this issue of correlations, and to bring this issue to the fore, this topic starts with ones that have direct methods of counting ages due to annual layers, how those annual layers validate each other and how several radiometric methods enter into the mix -- correlations not just with age but with climate and certain known instances that occurred in the past and which show up in these records just where they should be.
The challenge for the creationist is not just to describe how a single method can be wrong, but how they can all be wrong at the same time and yet produce identical results - when the errors in different systems should produce different random results.
I'm betting you won't, because the last thing YEC's want to do is see how badly their opinions are invalidated by the preponderance of objective empirical reality.
Enjoy
ps -- if you don't participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then any comments you make from here on are just you blowing smoke.
Edited by RAZD, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:36 AM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 1311 (808038)
05-08-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM


Dredge writes:
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
As a life long Christian raised in a Christian home and educated in a Christian school I am of course aware that there are errors, omissions and contradictions found throughout scripture as well as fantasy and "Just so Stories" and absurdities and evidence of the ignorance of the authors and folk tales and local legal practices and lots of other stuff. The Bible is simply an anthology of anthologies written by man and reflecting the people and era of the authors.
That does not change the fact that evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only viable explanation presented so far.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 127 of 1311 (808050)
05-08-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dredge
05-05-2017 5:50 AM


Dredge writes:
Yes, ok, but what difference has believing Darwin's yarn made to anything in the real world?
First, it isn't Darwin's yarn. It is a theory that has been developed over 150 years by hundreds of thousands of scientists.
Second, in the real world we now know the history of life and how species are related. That's the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 5:50 AM Dredge has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 1311 (808052)
05-08-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM


Really? In that case, please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world?
Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so?
It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think?
It's because the Theory of Evolution works. That is, it is useful and it explains things well. Simply put; it is a good tool. That's all there is to it.
Added by edit:
As a theistic evolutionist, you seem blissfully unaware that millions of years of evolution is incompatible with Scripture - and I'm not just talking about the first chapter of Genesis. But this is off-topic so that's all I'll say on the matter here.
That's bullshit. I'm a Christian and I accept evolution - and that doesn't cause compatibility problems with my understanding of scripture.
Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 129 of 1311 (808054)
05-08-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Davidjay
05-05-2017 11:02 AM


Re: Darwin
Davidjay writes:
Yes, totally agree, the theory of evolution contributes nothing to our knowledge of biology, NOTHING,
Then please respond to any of my posts in the first 30 of this thread. In those posts I discuss just how the theory of evolution contributes to our knowledge of biology. For example, it allows us to understand the difference in divergence between exons and introns. It helps us explain the nested hierarchy. It helps us explain the distribution and divergence of orthologous endogenous retroviruses. It helps us explain biogeography. It helps us explain the fossil record. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Davidjay, posted 05-05-2017 11:02 AM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 130 of 1311 (808078)
05-08-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-05-2017 10:24 AM


Re: The Definitional word games come from the ToE, not the creationists
Faith writes:
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.
How does creationism make sense of the fact that all complex eukaryote species fall into a nested hierarchy?
How does creationism make sense of the fact of exon and intron divergence between different species groups, such as rodents and humans?
How does creationism make sense of pattern of orthologous endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and other primates?
The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution explains all of these things which makes it useful in the field of biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-05-2017 10:24 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 131 of 1311 (808081)
05-08-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by CRR
05-06-2017 6:51 AM


Re: 2 - 0. Own goals.
CRR writes:
Moroz? Yes he does disagree; as I noted in my post #53 when I said "What is revealing is that people actively promoting the importance of the theory of evolution admit that it is little used in day to day biology."
That's a bit ironic given Moroz's CV. The very first hit from a Google Scholar search turns up this primary paper:
"Deuterostome phylogeny reveals monophyletic chordates and the new phylum Xenoturbellida"
Deuterostome phylogeny reveals monophyletic chordates and the new phylum Xenoturbellida | Nature
That's as evolutionary as it gets. Phylogenetic analysis is exactly what the theory of evolution is all about, and Moroz uses it.
Another own goal. Douglas Axe discusses this "evolution" of antennas in Chapter 11 of "Undeniable"* where he says "As a finder of inventions, Darwin's evolutionary mechanism is a complete bust, but as we saw in chapter 7, it sometimes comes in handy as a fiddler. ... Fine tuning involves the adjustment of many small details, so trial and error is often the best way to do it."
In fact I'd say it is more a trial and error solution aided by the power of computers than it is an application of evolutionary theory.
*How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That life Is designed.
Highly recommended.
In which primary paper did Axe show that Darwin's mechanisms were a bust?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by CRR, posted 05-06-2017 6:51 AM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 132 of 1311 (808083)
05-08-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
05-06-2017 1:49 PM


Re: What mechanism stops evolutionary change?
Faith writes:
Running out of genetic diversity/ allelic options as new populations develop from old, especially as they near the point of "speciation" where their allelic options are severely reduced.
Genetic diversity and allelic options are replenished by mutations that occur in every individual in every generation.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 05-06-2017 1:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 133 of 1311 (808087)
05-08-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by CRR
05-07-2017 7:32 PM


Re: Speedy Species Surprise
CRR writes:
However what we don't see, or at least I don't know of an example, is mutations adding significant amounts of new genetic information.
All you have to do is compare the genome of two species. For example, you could look at the 40 million mutations that differ between the human and chimp genomes. Among those are the mutations that are responsible for the species specific features of those two lineages. If those don't qualify as mutations that add genetic information, then evolution doesn't have to produce genetic information as you define it.
What we see is consistent with the Biblical YEC view.
How is the nested hierarchy consistent with the YEC view?
How is the distribution and divergence of ERVs consistent with the YEC view?
How is the divergence of introns and exons consistent with the YEC view?
How is the existence of hominid transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view?
How is the existence of reptile to mammal transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view?
How is the relationship between parent-daughter ratios of isotopes in rocks and the fossils found below them consistent with YEC?
These are just a few off the top of my head, and all these questions can be answered by the theory of evolution. I have yet to see a YEC even try to approach these questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by CRR, posted 05-07-2017 7:32 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 134 of 1311 (808088)
05-08-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by CRR
05-07-2017 9:49 PM


Re: Speedy Species Surprise
CRR writes:
This is an area of ongoing research but progress is being made. See for example
"Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins", Page Not Found .
Tom Schneider has already done this work, and he has shown that evolutionary mechanisms do increase genetic information as it relates to Shannon's definition:
quote:
How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution of biological information - PMC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by CRR, posted 05-07-2017 9:49 PM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by CRR, posted 05-08-2017 8:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 135 of 1311 (808090)
05-08-2017 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dredge
05-08-2017 3:02 AM


Dredge writes:
It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
Then how does the biology teacher explain why life falls into a nested hierarchy?
How does the biology teacher explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones?
How does the biology teacher explain why we find reptile-mammal transitional fossils but no bird-mammal transitional fossils?
I think you are speaking on topics you have no knowledge of.
Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world?
Why do you avoid all of my posts, especially those on the first few pages of this thread? I demonstrated in multiple posts just how useful the theory is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dredge, posted 05-08-2017 3:02 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:33 AM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024