|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Yes, dwise1, you're right. Calling Talk Origins atheist is as bad a characterising the Discovery Institute as Creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
CRR writes: Yes, dwise1, you're right. Calling Talk Origins atheist is as bad a characterising the Discovery Institute as Creationist. Except that the DI *is* creationist, that's it's purpose. Libel isn't libel if the accusation is true.
quote: Discovery Institute - Wikipedia And ever since, they've attempted to cover up their aims. Lying for Jesus.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
CRR writes: Yes, dwise1, you're right. Calling Talk Origins atheist is as bad a characterising the Discovery Institute as Creationist. This is a common creationist tactic. When you can't deal with the science, just start casting aspersions about evolution being a religion or evolution being the product of atheism. Attack the messenger so you don't have to deal with the message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Not inherently retarded, maybe, but you are definitely being held back by your religious views.
Do you I might be retarded? Dredge writes:
Belial is creationism. Creationism is bad science and worse theology. "What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?" - 2Corinthians 6:15 Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1050 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Cerainly we need new flu vaccine each year because the flu virus changes but the theory of evolution is of no help in predicting the way it will change, so it isn't used there either/ Bit of an old post, but it looks like no one has responded. The theory of evolution is, indeed, used in predicting which flu viruses to include in vaccines. Modern computational techniques for predicting which flu viruses are expected to be most common the next season are based entirely on evolutionary theory. I wanted to write a nice simple explanation of the techniques, but unfortunately they are not simple and it's a bit beyond my understanding. Here is an article explaining the technique of allele dynamics plots. As far as I can tell it involves taking a bunch of currently circulating viruses and using cladistics to create a family tree. Based on this they reconstruct the most likely ancestral state and intermediate forms, and establish which alleles appear to be under positive selection - these are the ones expected to increase in frequency in the near future and therefore be important targets for next season's flu vaccine. Hopefully someone better at population genetics than me can offer more details, but this seems a pretty clear case of applied evolutionary theory to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, that's just normal variation within a Kind, NOT evolutionary theory because the ToE is all about change from species to species, not just within a species. It is always claimed that microevolution IS evolution, what's to stop the changes from turning a reptile into a mammal? I've offered my own theory many times, but it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species. If nothing else there is simply no evidence for evolution beyond the common variation of a Species or Kind. It's all theory, all assumption based on the theory.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
There is simply no evidence for that. It's all conjecture, all assumption based on the conjecture.
... it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: ... it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species. There is simply no evidence for that. It's all conjecture, all assumption based on the conjecture. The fact is that all the evidence supports intraspecies variation ONLY, that being all that is ever observed, and it's the extension to the idea of species evolving from species that is pure conjecture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That's not a fact.
The fact is that all the evidence supports intraspecies variation ONLY....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Calling Talk Origins atheist is as bad a ... Then why do you do it? Seriously! What was your reasoning in deciding that talkorigins.org, an outgrowth of the talkorigins newsgroup, is an atheist site? Is it somehow akin to Dredge misrepresenting evolution as "atheist theology"? Do you somehow believe that there is an inherent conflict between evolution and creation? If so, then please explain.
... is as bad a characterising the Discovery Institute as Creationist. That looks like a very pointed remark, pointed directly at me. Like you are accusing me of having characterized the Discovery Insitute as creationist. Is that what you are doing? Just come out with it and say so directly, why don't you? I searched all forums for Discovery Institute (we have that capability) and the single page of results went back to 13-Aug-2015 7:37 AM. In all that time, I only mentioned the Discovery Institute exactly one single time, which was on 19-Jun-2017 in Message 536. Is that the one you are talking about? If not, then please link me to the one you are complaining about. Here is exactly what I wrote, copy-and-pasted from Message 536:
DWise1 writes: Now, we have a movement, Intelligent Design (courtesy of the Discovery Institute), whose stated goal is to change science so that it must include supernaturalistic explanations. Science could not possibly exist under those conditions, as should be plain to you by now. "goddidit" cannot not possibly answer any scientific question, any "how does this work" question. Do please point out to me precisely where I characterize the Discovery Institute as creationist. And be sure to quote me directly. Though you do raise a good question: Is the Discovery Institute a creationist organization? As much as they try to avoid that label, they do fit the pattern well enough. From their Wedge Document:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: "Darwinism Seminaries"? What the hell are they supposed to be? That's a lot of religious references and objectives despite how much they try to downplay and hide it. So do the major creationist organizations who used to mask their religious agenda behind the smokescreens of "creation science" (claiming that their objections to evolution were "purely scientific, nothing religious about it") and their Two Model Approach with the extremely vague double-talk surrounding its "creation model" which only spoke vaguely about some "unnamed Creator" (but only to the public and the courts; to churches they named that Creator very specifically). It is obvious by "intelligent design" that the IDists mean Divine Creation by YHWH. Oh yes, they give lip service to LGMs and panspermia, etc, as part of their "we're not creationists" smokescreen. And those other creationist groups, unable to continue to use "creation science" in court since Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) exposed its purely religious nature, have switched to a new smokescreen, "intelligent design", knowing that it's just another form of creationism. A less vulnerable smokescreen, since it avoids using young earth and Noah's Flood claims, arguably the weakest parts of creationism. Operationally, creationists suffer from either not understanding science or else deliberately misrepresenting it and the evidence. The Discovery Institute also suffers from that weakness with their own bugaboo: materialism. They think that all forms of materialism are the same and are unable to distinguish between philosophical materialism (that matter is all that there is) and methodological materialism (all that we can work with is the material universe). Science uses the latter out of sheer necessity, since it is incapable of dealing with the supernatural (if you had read the rest of my message, Message 536, you would have known that already). In doing so, science is not saying that the supernatural does not exist, but rather merely that it cannot work with the supernatural. But the Discovery Institute does not understand that and falsely accuses science of practicing philosophical materialism, called "scientific materialism" in the Wedge Document. And its "solution" is to require science to use supernaturalistic explanations. We've discussed that before, such as in the topic (closed), So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), where I asked that proponents of ID please explain just exactly how science is supposed work if it's required to use the supernatural. My questions from that topic (started 27-Nov-2007 11:39 AM):
Message 27DWise1 writes:
Specifically pertinent to the question is the line of questioning regarding ID's goal of requiring science to include supernaturalistic explanations, specifically the "explanation" of "Goddidit". Specifically:Exactly how do they intend science's methodology of hypothesis building and testing to function with the requirement that it include "Goddidit"? Just how exactly are we supposed to test "Goddidit", as the current methodology requires? Just exactly how is "Goddidit" supposed to raise new questions which help to direct new research, something that science depends very heavily upon and which is readily and amply provided by the current methodology? Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not serve as show-stopping dead-end to all scientific investigation? Just how exactly is "Goddidit" supposed to not kill science? Message 54DWise1 writes:
But back to the topic: you still have not addressed the question. ID wants to reform science to include supernaturalistic explanations. Just how do you propose that we test supernaturalistic explanations? Because if we are to be expected to use supernaturalistic explanations, then we will need to test them. Because if we are unable to test the hypotheses that we advance, then science will not work. Employing ID's supernatural-based science would require us to test supernaturalistic hypotheses. How are we supposed to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses? Without the ability to test those supernaturalistic hypotheses, how could ID science possibly work? Science works extremely well, but you want to replace it with ID. Haven't you, or any ID proponent for that matter, given any thought to how that replacement of yours would work? Or even whether it would work at all? Finally, in summation mode I wrote (Message 54, 05-Jun-2011 10:27 AM):
DWise1 writes:
Nearly four years and nearly 400 messages. No creationist has been able to provide an answer. Several attempts to change the question, but no answer. There is still no known way in which science could use supernaturalistic hypotheses nor to survive the attempt.
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Steven Colbert on NPR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2268 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
No. It was pointed at someone else. Sorry to trigger you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Charles Darwin wrote the first science-fiction novel. If he were alive today he would be astonished that so many people have taken the contents of Origin seriously!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Then why do you call talkorigins.org an atheist site? Seriously! What was your reasoning in deciding that talkorigins.org, an outgrowth of the talkorigins newsgroup, is an atheist site?
Is it somehow akin to Dredge misrepresenting evolution as "atheist theology"? Do you somehow believe that there is an inherent conflict between evolution and creation? If so, then please explain.{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Steven Colbert on NPR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No, that's just normal variation within a Kind, NOT evolutionary theory because the ToE is all about change from species to species, not just within a species. ... The theory of evolution is about explaining the evidence observed, whether it is the evolution within a generation in a breeding population (microevolution) or about the long term accumulation of evolutionary traits over many generations (anagenesis, macroevolution part 1) or about the different long term accumulation of evolutionary traits over many generations that differentiates daughter populations with reproductive isolation into different species (cladogenesis, macroevolution part 2). All the evolution occurs within the breeding population, generation after generation.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. ... It is always claimed that microevolution IS evolution, ... It is. That's what the science says, and in discussions of science we like to use the definitions that the particular field of science uses. All evolution occurs withing the current generation of the breeding population.
... what's to stop the changes from turning a reptile into a mammal? ... Selection and mutations in isolated populations leads to differentiation between daughter populations. Over hundreds of generations those changes can show up as noticeable differences in teeth, in hips, in jaw/ear geometry.
... I've offered my own theory many times, but it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species. ... In science we don't get to have personal theories, we are limited to scientific theories that are based on evidence and which are usable to make predictions to test the theory. Curiously no limits of the genome have ever been discovered, it is just something you have made up, it is not objective empirical evidence. Likewise your "theory" is based on wishful thinking and fails to explain the evidence in the world around you.
... If nothing else there is simply no evidence for evolution beyond the common variation of a Species or Kind. ... Says the person who think the whole Subphylum Trilobitomorpha (trilobites) and the whole Family Limulidae (horseshoe crabs) in the Subphylum Chelicerata are all one species:
quote: Word is still out on whether the whole Subphylum Chelicerata, including Sea scorpions and Sea spiders, are also "all derived from the same genome ... But is sure sounds like " the limits of the genome itself" are rather unlimited. As predicted by the (scientific) ToE.
... It's all theory ... Which is what science uses to explain evidence and make predictions. And the ToE is substantiated by evidence in the fossil record and evidence in the genetic record, all validating the scientific theory without a scintilla of invalidating evidence despite creationist desperate attempts (including fabricated lies) to the contrary.
... all assumption based on the theory. Those "assumptions based on the theory" are actually testable predictions, like the continued formation of nested hierarchies as species continue to evolve and new species are observed to form through cladogenesis and like the prediction of a common ancestor pool.
Message 563: Faith writes: ... it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species. There is simply no evidence for that. It's all conjecture, all assumption based on the conjecture. The fact is that all the evidence supports intraspecies variation ONLY, that being all that is ever observed, ... Which is, amazingly, exactly what the ToE predicts. Astonishing.
...and it's the extension to the idea of species evolving from species that is pure conjecture. And yet, curiously, new species have been observed to form here in the real world. As noted above you are getting so desperate for your claim to be true that you end up classifying whole sections of evolved species as all one species.
Pelycodus ... all one species (according to Faith, not science)
Foraminifera ... all one species (according to Faith, not science) Trilobites and horseshoe clams ... all one species (according to Faith, not science) Life ... all one species? (maybe, according to Faith, not science) 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only "new species" that have ever arisen are not really new species, they are nothing but the usual intraspecies variation, misnamed because a particular variation has reached the point where it is genetically incapable of breeding with the mother population. And honest observation should also lead to the recognition that at that point such a variation or race is too genetically depleted to evolve any further anyway. Nothing has ever been observed but intraspecies variation. That's all there is, there is no such thing as species-to-species change.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024