Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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

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


Message 143 of 1311 (808190)
05-09-2017 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by bluegenes
05-06-2017 2:43 AM


Re: 2 - 0. Own goals.
bluegenes writes:
Darwin's theory is certainly useful n engineering.
Really. Engineering technology is always evolving, but to credit any of it to Darwin's theory is nonsense.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote dBCode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 05-06-2017 2:43 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 144 of 1311 (808191)
05-09-2017 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-06-2017 9:35 AM


I should be more specific:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
If "evolution" means simply, heritable changes in a population (a la Dr Adequate's definition), then yes, the above statement has a lot going for it.
If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it - iff the theory of Common Descent is left out of "Darwinism".
If "evolution" means the Theory of Common Descent, the above statement has nothing at all going for it if "biology" means applied biology.
If "evolution" means Darwinism, the above statement has a lot going for it if "biology"includes atheist bed-time stories about whales evolving from deers, etc.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-06-2017 9:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2017 12:43 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 145 of 1311 (808192)
05-09-2017 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by CRR
05-07-2017 7:32 PM


Re: Speedy Species Surprise
It seems to me that what Darwin did, in effect, was take the principals of artificial selection (that animal and plant breeders had been employing for millennia) and apply them to creatures "in the wild" ... thereby coming up with the theory of natural selection to explain heritable changes in a natural ("wild") population. From there he waved the magic wand of wild and uninhibited extrapolation until he arrived at Common Descent.
But if natural selection is just a "feral" version of artificial selection, then I'm wondering what 150 years of Darwinism has actually added to the knowledge of animal and plant breeders.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 05-09-2017 10:56 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 146 of 1311 (808193)
05-09-2017 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
05-06-2017 8:47 AM


Re: What mechanism stops evolutionary change?
Evolutionists and creationists argue about what was possible or not after the Flood, but both seem to be forgetting one important factor: The God who created all things isn't confined to natural laws and can perform miracles. After the Flood, the Creator could have decided to "hurry things along" by miraculously creating further variations within the kinds of creatures that came off the ark. God could have easily facilitated "accelerated evolution" - no problem at all.
In which case, creation science doesn't have to stick strictly to the Bible script, as God could have performed all sorts of miracles in his creation that aren't mentioned at all in the Scriptures.
For example, if there was one kind of giraffe on the ark and there are four species today, so what? God wanted four species to exist, so after the Flood he waved his magic wand and four species eventually emerged from one kind. If he wanted twenty species of giraffe, then twenty would have eventually emerged from one kind. What's the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 05-06-2017 8:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2017 3:06 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 05-09-2017 7:48 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2017 8:57 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 147 of 1311 (808194)
05-09-2017 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Coyote
05-06-2017 9:36 AM


Re: Evolution is a cult?
Coyote writes:
I doubt if Darwin was mentioned more than once or twice
Maybe so, but I bet there was a lot of gratuitous use of the word "evolution", which are allusions to Darwinism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2017 9:36 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 148 of 1311 (808195)
05-09-2017 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Davidjay
05-06-2017 10:44 AM


Re: Definitely Evolution is a cult?
What about the Sun, Dj? It's a freakin' nuclear fusion reactor and atheists believe it formed as a result of blind, dumb chance! LOL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Davidjay, posted 05-06-2017 10:44 AM Davidjay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2017 12:44 PM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 149 of 1311 (808196)
05-09-2017 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
05-06-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Definitely Evolution is a cult?
Coyote writes:
I've written a number of non-fiction books
I'm going to write a non-fiction book called "Darwin's Contributions to Applied Science". It will be the shortest book in history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 05-06-2017 10:26 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
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 replied

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
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 replied

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
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 replied

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
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 replied

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

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
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 replied

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