Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
145 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 143 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,726 Year: 2,474/23,288 Month: 665/1,809 Week: 97/225 Day: 0/28 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.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 166 of 1311 (808284)
05-09-2017 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Taq
05-09-2017 1:47 PM


Re: What mechanism stops evolutionary change?
Taq writes:

Because they know that religiously based explanations are inferior to scientific explanations. This is why they try to make evolution look like a religion so that it shares the same flaw as creationism does.

There must be something in that, and it's quite a modern thing. The idea that belief needs to be proven objectively would be alien to an 18th century Christian. It smacks of a real deep centred insecurity.


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 165 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 1:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 3:50 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 167 of 1311 (808286)
05-09-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Tangle
05-09-2017 3:45 PM


Re: What mechanism stops evolutionary change?
Tangle writes:

There must be something in that, and it's quite a modern thing. The idea that belief needs to be proven objectively would be alien to an 18th century Christian. It smacks of a real deep centred insecurity.

The natural world was a much more mysterious place in the 1700's. When modern science found natural and mindless processes for much of nature it left little room for God in some peoples' eyes. There was even those who didn't like Newton because he proposed an indifferent, impersonal, and mechanistic process for the movement of planets. When you fall into the trap of believing in a God of the Gaps, that God disappears when knowledge fills those gaps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2017 3:45 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 168 of 1311 (808313)
05-10-2017 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Taq
05-08-2017 12:39 PM


Taq writes:

I demonstrated in multiple posts just how useful the theory is.

You obviously don't know the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory.  Your mind is so deep in theory that that you've forgotten there's a real world out there.

All you've done in your previous posts (4 9 12 13 17) is offer evolutionary explanations for certain observations in nature.  And this is your idea of "useful"?  All you're doing is theorising!   Whether your theorising is correct or not isn't the point; the point is it's just paper-science, and it's no more useful than toilet paper.  

Here is a simple example of what you're doing: the observation is made that giraffes have long necks; an explanation for the long neck is then proffered - a longer neck confers a survival advantage which natural selection favours; longer necks are a heritable trait so therefore eventally longer necks dominate in the population.  Conclusion: Long necks can only be explained by evolution.  How is this useful?  It's just talk.  

Here is an example of a useful application of "evolution":  A dog breeder wants to produce the biggest Rottweilerso possible, so he chooses only the biggest pups from a litter for future breeding.  He repeats this process with each successive generation.

 Do you see the difference?  The first example is just theorising about evolution; the second example is a pracitcal, real- world application of evolution (albeit dog breeders don't use the word, "evolution").

I suspect that like most students of biology, you've been indoctrinated by the cult of Darwinism to consider theoretical arguments for evolution to be proof-positive that Darwinism is "useful" and therefore a "fact".  This is how a cult operates - unsuspecting victims are conditioned to think uncritically in a certain way, until it becomes de rigueur.  They don't realise their error until someone from outside the cult points it out to them; and even then the penny might not drop because their faulty reasoning is so ingrained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 05-08-2017 12:39 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Tangle, posted 05-10-2017 4:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:43 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 169 of 1311 (808314)
05-10-2017 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
05-08-2017 8:02 AM


Re: The Age of the Earth
You seem to have assumed that Dredge is a YEC - Dredge is not a YEC. Dredge is an OEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 05-08-2017 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 6:58 AM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 170 of 1311 (808315)
05-10-2017 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2017 10:47 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

I'm a Christian and I accept evolution

Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, as described in Genesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2017 10:47 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 05-10-2017 7:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7331
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 171 of 1311 (808319)
05-10-2017 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:33 AM


Dredge writes:

Here is a simple example of what you're doing: the observation is made that giraffes have long necks; an explanation for the long neck is then proffered - a longer neck confers a survival advantage which natural selection favours; longer necks are a heritable trait so therefore eventally longer necks dominate in the population. Conclusion: Long necks can only be explained by evolution. How is this useful? It's just talk.

You have this arse-about-face.

Science has accepted the fact of evolution for over a century. There is overwhelming evidence for it and there is no other competing theory. Therefore when a feature like the giraffe's neck is seen the assumption is that the process of evolution produced it.

That's generally the end of it because the case is closed for 'proofs' of evolution - there's no money to be wasted in continuing to prove something already proven. But during their day-to-day useless work sometimes scientists discover things that adds to its confirmation. One such pice of evidence is the the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. (To further demonstrate how useless the theory of evolution is, without it we wouldn't have a clue why this nerve is so stupidly built. With it, we know.)

quote:
This video, including comments by Richard Dawkins, documents a necropsy (an autopsy on an animal other than a human) carried out in a classroom on a giraffe. In this video, we follow the pathway of the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve, an important nerve that is a branch of the Vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve). The recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve, which branches off the Vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to ennervate the larynx, or voice box, thereby providing motor function. The purpose of doing this exercise is to show that there is no so-called “intelligent designer” because the pathway of this nerve is completely illogical — unless, of course, you accept that evolution is the reason for this nerve’s convoluted pathway through the body.

http://scienceblogs.com/...22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir


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 168 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:33 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 172 of 1311 (808325)
05-10-2017 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:36 AM


Re: The Age of the Earth
You seem to have assumed that Dredge is a YEC - Dredge is not a YEC. Dredge is an OEC.

My apologies. So you agree that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old and that life on earth has been around for over 3 billion of those years?

Enjoy


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 169 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:36 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dredge, posted 05-11-2017 2:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 173 of 1311 (808327)
05-10-2017 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:39 AM


Dredge writes:

Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real, historical people, as described in Genesis?

Of course not. Genesis 2&3 is a "Just So" story meant to explain why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than the other animals, why we are not still hunter gatherers, why we seem to have a moral based society and why women should be subject to men.

Creation is simply a plot device just like the God character in the story.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:39 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8225
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 174 of 1311 (808345)
05-10-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dredge
05-10-2017 3:33 AM


Dredge writes:

You obviously don't know the difference between a theory and a practical use for a theory.

You asked how the theory of evolution is useful in the field of biology. I did just that.

Since you are so enamored with definitions, let's look at the definition for biology:

"the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. "
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/biology

"Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, identification and taxonomy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Biology includes the history of species, the origin of species, and how species changed over time. The theory of evolution is very useful for figuring those things out.

All you've done in your previous posts (4 9 12 13 17) is offer evolutionary explanations for certain observations in nature. And this is your idea of "useful"? All you're doing is theorising! Whether your theorising is correct or not isn't the point; the point is it's just paper-science, and it's no more useful than toilet paper.

The entire purpose of science is to offer testable explanations for groups of facts. Producing theories is what science is all about.

Here is a simple example of what you're doing: the observation is made that giraffes have long necks; an explanation for the long neck is then proffered - a longer neck confers a survival advantage which natural selection favours; longer necks are a heritable trait so therefore eventally longer necks dominate in the population. Conclusion: Long necks can only be explained by evolution. How is this useful? It's just talk.

It's a testable explanation for a group of facts which is the entire purpose of science. It is also useful to biology because it explains the origin of giraffes. One of the purposes of biology is to explain why there are giraffes, and this explanation fills that purpose.

I suspect that like most students of biology, you've been indoctrinated by the cult of Darwinism to consider theoretical arguments for evolution to be proof-positive that Darwinism is "useful" and therefore a "fact".

I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dredge, posted 05-10-2017 3:33 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Dredge, posted 05-11-2017 3:04 AM Taq has responded
 Message 177 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:29 AM Taq has responded
 Message 188 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 5:03 AM Taq has responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 175 of 1311 (808474)
05-11-2017 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
05-10-2017 6:58 AM


Re: The Age of the Earth
Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 6:58 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 9:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 186 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 11:10 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 1291
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 176 of 1311 (808478)
05-11-2017 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Taq
05-10-2017 10:43 AM


Taq writes:

I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct?


"Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here.  These speculations have been charitably called "scenarios"; they are often more contemptuously, and rightly, labeled "stories".  Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature, where they are taken too seriously and literally."   - Stephen Jay Gould.

(Richard Ellis, Aquagenesis: The Origin and Evolution of LIfe in the Sea.  Penguin Books, 2001, p.204)

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:43 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 11:09 AM Dredge has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 177 of 1311 (808486)
05-11-2017 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Taq
05-10-2017 10:43 AM


Taq writes:
I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct?

Many people say that evolution is fact and that there is a mountain of evidence to prove it. Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth? This episode [Creation magazine Live] examines and refutes key evolution evidences such as:
● Embryo similarity
● The Miller/Urey experiment
● Peppered Moths
● Homology
● Horse evolution
● Fossil record
● Dinosaurs
● Archaeopteryx
● Whale evolution
● Tiktaalik
● Vestigial organs
● Ape men
● Natural selection
● Mutations
● Chimp/human DNA 98% similarity
● Junk DNA

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 05-10-2017 10:43 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 05-11-2017 8:06 AM CRR has responded
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 05-11-2017 9:22 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 183 by vimesey, posted 05-11-2017 10:51 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Taq, posted 05-11-2017 11:06 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 194 by Dredge, posted 05-14-2017 5:13 AM CRR has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 178 of 1311 (808492)
05-11-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:29 AM


Honest Christians should.
CRR writes:

Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth?

Yes, honest Christians should understand that Genesis 1 & Genesis 2&3 are fictional.

First, Genesis is not one story but a collections of folk stories. Second, based on the overwhelming evidence found both in reality and in the Bible itself, of course the tales found in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2&3 should be understood as "not factual".

That does not mean they have no value or purpose but the fact the there are two entirely different and mutually exclusive creation tales should be the first clue that "creation" is not what is relevant, it is a plot device. When you add in the fact that two entirely different gods are described in the two stories any honest Christian should see clearly that the stories are folk tales, "Just So" stories and then look to see why two mutually exclusive stories were included.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:29 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 8:55 AM jar has responded

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 652 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 179 of 1311 (808499)
05-11-2017 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
05-11-2017 8:06 AM


Re: Honest Christians should.
CRR writes:

Should Christians just cave in and admit that Genesis is a myth?

Quote Mining!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 05-11-2017 8:06 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 05-11-2017 10:48 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20537
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 180 of 1311 (808501)
05-11-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dredge
05-11-2017 2:39 AM


The Age of Life on Earth
Dredge has no idea how old the earth is and Dredge believes that life on earth was created about 5778 years ago.

See Life before 5778 years ago, Message 487 of Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 as this is off topic for this thread.

Enjoy


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 175 by Dredge, posted 05-11-2017 2:39 AM Dredge has not yet 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