|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Or how about this definition?
quote: Strong's Concordance definition of "kind"Blue Letter Bible on line Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
CRR writes: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. Well that looks like common descent all the way down to me.....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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
To me, too. All the way down from the first prokaryotes to the variety of living things today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. ... A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind". Yes. Clades. Nested clades. Exactly what evolution predicts. So what's your point? Commonly, we see creationists say that evolution requires a cat to give birth to a dog. A ludicrous lie. "But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!" That is one of those stupid things that creationists say in order to tell you that they have no clue what they're talking about, like "it's just a theory." We show you a mammal that evolved into a different mammal species and a creationist shouts, "but they're STILL MAMMALS!!!!" What do you expect, feathers? So what's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
CRR writes: Or how about this definition? What we are interested in is the criteria one uses to determine if two species belong to the same kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Are you channeling Davidjay? You're beginning to sound just as irrational.
What? ... You're comparing Darwinists' extrapolative fantasies to mathematics and physics? LOL! What an insult to true science.The more I talk to evolutionists, the more they remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
quoted in Message 565:
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. Dredge, you should be replying to that quote's own message, Message 536. What you replied to instead was my reply to CRR apparently accusing me of saying something I didn't (which he retracted while avoiding the points I raised), in which I quoted myself verbatim asking him to point out what I was supposed to have said what he had erroneously accused me of. Please go back to the original, Message 536, and reply to that instead. I feel that I made some rather good points there.
Science cannot answer every scientific question. For example, science will never be able to provide a rational answer to the question,"How could something as functionally and irreducibly complex as a living organism possibly have come into existence?" This is because science is so puny and limited it can only scratch the surface of reality. In the face of the miracles performed by our Creator, God Almighty, science is laughably useless. (Picture a toddler with a plastic sword taking on all the armies of the world.) What a load of crap!
Science cannot answer every scientific question. Of course not. Everybody knows that. We are not omniscient. The goal of answering every scientific question does exist and everybody knows that it is unattainable, but that is never a reason for giving up and not trying. So just who insists that science must be able to answer every single scientific question? Creationist idiots. What's your argument? That since we are unable to answer every single possible scientific question then we should give up and not bother to try to answer even one? Sheer idiocy! Consider the case of wanting to harvest a field of wheat so that you can feed yourself. You would argue that since we cannot harvest every single grain of wheat in that field, we shouldn't try to harvest any at all, not even one. Fine, you deserve to starve to death. And here's your Darwin Award that you earned and so richly deserve.
For example, science will never be able to provide a rational answer to the question,"How could something as functionally and irreducibly complex as a living organism possibly have come into existence?" Yes, science can provide a rational answer. It's called reproduction. You may have heard about it, but hopefully not practiced it yourself (lest we have to take your Darwin Award away from you). As for the unstated question of how that species had arisen, its complexity indicates that it had evolved -- remember that complexity, even "irreducible complexity", is a product of evolution, not of design (which abhors undue complexity). And how did it evolve? Science can examine the evidence and work out an answer to that. That's what science does best: answer the "how" questions. And even more important, when it gets an answer wrong, then it's very good at detecting that and correcting that mistake -- when do we ever see a religion detecting and correcting its mistakes? What is the alternative that you want to offer? "Goddidit!"? Sorry, but that is not an answer for a scientific question, for a question of "how does this work?". For example:
- How does this car work? - Goddidit! - Uh, OK. But how does this car work? - Goddidit! - Whatever! That still doesn't explain how this car works! - Goddidit! - How does this car work? - Goddidit! - What a useless idiot! - Goddidit! Goddidit! {Squaaack!} While "goddidit" may answer some theological questions, it offers absolutely nothing towards answering scientific questions, questions about how the physical universe works. Adding it to a scientific answer contributes absolutely nothing to that answer. Leaving it out of a scientific answer does not detract from that answer in any manner whatsoever. It is a true fact that I drive a Honda hybrid. What does that true fact contribute to answering the question of how light refracts as it passes from one medium to another of a different density? Nothing whatsoever. How does leaving that true fact out detract from that answer? In absolutely no manner whatsoever. "Goddidit!" is even worse than a non-answer. If you allow it to (and you would insist upon it), then it can fool you into thinking that the question had been answered. Then you would stop looking for the actual answer to that question. Far worse still, you would resist other people's efforts to find the answer, thinking that by continuing to ask that question they are questioning God, opposing God, and promoting atheism. Isn't that what you've been doing? Besides, if you were actually a creationist, you would believe that God created the universe, including all the natural processes, so when something happens through natural processes, such as evolution, then it should be a given that God did it. Instead, like so many other deluded fake creationists, you seem to believe that something happening through natural processes somehow disproves God. Again, sheer idiocy! So since science is not perfect and cannot answer every single possible scientific question, you want us to abandon it and replace it with the ultimate non-answer, "goddidit!". Complete and utter idiocy! Despite its limitations, science is still the best and most reliable method we have for learning about the physical universe. The more we learn about the universe, the better off we are. Instead, you would want to doom us to abject ignorance, which is understandable since your religion obviously depends on your continued ignorance and would shrivel up if exposed to the light. Or at least that is what your witness repeatedly tells us. And you should probably stop trying to speak for your god. The counter-productive way you go about it must really piss her off. And yet again, please explain your reasoning behind saying that evolution is an "atheist theology". You do have some reason for uttering such nonsense, don't you? So what is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Dredge writes: An honest observation of thousands of years of animal and plant breeding suggests that Darwins' Tree of Common Descent is a Tree of Fantasy. If the tree is false, then show me a primate that isn't a mammal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
What we are interested in is the criteria one uses to determine if two species belong to the same kind. But first we will need to define "species"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: But first we will need to define "species" This is becoming a Monty Python sketch. Species are organisms that don't successfully interbreed. That's been the definition for a few hundred years, it gets a bit fuzzy round the edges sometimes because biology is not mathematics, but it's good enough for us.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: Species are organisms that don't successfully interbreed. Don't or can't?What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a geographical barrier? What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a behavioural barrier? Chihuahuas and Great Danes don't successfully interbreed but are both considered to be the same species. How about them? What about horses and donkeys that can and do successfully interbreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: Don't or can't?What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a geographical barrier? What about organisms that potentially could but are separated by a behavioural barrier? Chihuahuas and Great Danes don't successfully interbreed but are both considered to be the same species. How about them? What about horses and donkeys that can and do successfully interbreed? Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species.
Tangle writes: it gets a bit fuzzy round the edges sometimes because biology is not mathematics, but it's good enough for us. quote: Species concept - Wikipedia Are you going to fart around attempting to define your way out of every issue you have to confront because of your religious beliefs or are you going to actually deal with real stuff in the real world? Is this obsession with definitions all you've got? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This one is funny.
Dredge writes: Thank Odin for that. If science could answer every question I won't have a job. I'd be standing on a busy intersection with a hand-written placard stating: "Two kids to support. No job. No internet. Hungry. Please give. God bless". Science cannot answer every scientific question... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I'm always quite puzzled when creationists think that defining species exactly somehow is "a problem for evolution".
Fuzzy boundaries would be a prediction of evolution, unlike "created kinds" by creationists where the boundaries are supposed to be totally fixed . Note to myself: You've been watching too much Amcan tv lately, hence the word "totally". Should watch more European tv to embroaden my English vocab!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2242 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place. Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species. I gave an example of two animals of the same species that can't/don't interbreed, and an example of two animals of different species that can/do interbreed. As for kinds, well, we know them when we see them; just like you do with species. (sarcasm, in case you missed it) Actually I have elsewhere shown how we can infer that all cats, from tabby to tiger, are part of the one kind; and this is based on the fact that different species and genera of cats can and do interbreed. Perhaps we are actually on firmer biological ground talking about kinds rather than species. Edited by CRR, : Reword last sentence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024