|
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 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Dredge writes: To extrapolate from variation in beaks in the same species of Galapagos finches to claiming mice turn into elephants or bears turn into whales is to expose the edge of sanity. I'm sure you've been told that this is NOT evolution many times before. To keep repeating an error having been corrected on it is lying. When you do it you expose yourself as both ignorant and dishonest. Actually that is pretty much a hyperbolic statement of what evolutionists claims.The variation of beak sizes in Galapagos Finches has been called evolution. Evolutionists do claim that elephants evolved from small mammals, and that whales evolved from land animals. (Darwin suggested bears?) quote: It is believed that ~50 million years ago, Pakicetus, a land animal the size of a dog, was the ancestor of whales. So while it is technically incorrect to refer to mice and bears the intent is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
CRR writes: Actually that is pretty much a hyperbolic statement of what evolutionists claims. Actually it's exactly NOT what evolutionists claim, hyberbolic or otherwise. You will find only creationists talk garbage like elephants evolved from mice and whales from bears. Because, you know, bears and mice are modern animals - as modern as people and nothing has descended from them. It's perfect example of creationist's total ignorance of what they're objecting to. They make utter fools of themselves every time they do it. This is not a trivial point.
It is believed that ~50 million years ago, Pakicetus, a land animal the size of a dog, was the ancestor of whales. Exactly. So no mice, no bears and 50 million years ago.
So while it is technically incorrect to refer to mice and bears the intent is correct. It's not just technically incorrect it's also deliberatly dishonest an oft repeated gloat exposing an underlying ignorance.
The variation of beak sizes in Galapagos Finches has been called evolution. That'll be because it IS evolution. The fact that species change their form to fit their environment - and in the case of finches quickly too - is excellent evidence for evolution in action. Species are not immutable, something your great great grandfather fully believed because he was told this by his priest whilst on his knees before his fiction - if he thought of it at all that is.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: |
Or, maybe it's because the subject itself, life, is a concept very hard to define in one sentence or paragraph? Ever thought of that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that?
That information was in the linked article. Read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
CRR writes: That information was in the linked article. Read it. That's a cop out. This is a debate site, we don't refer people to other sites to get answers, we explain in our own words what we wish to get across, quoting if necessary and referrencing the place we got the information from forfurther information. I've asked you three times now to show how those three animals fit in with your definition of kinds and you've ignored me, so I can only assume that you can't answer. Biology is able to answer, why can't you?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that? That information was in the linked article. Read it. No operational definition of "kind" there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
Welcome to the English language. Yes, definitions can vary according to context. You can use a knife for spreading butter or for open-heart surgery. Definitions seem to be remarkably idiosyncratic. That's no excuse for being confused. If you want to discuss any subject intelligently, it's up to YOU to understand the definitions in context. Mocking the definitions just makes you look like a fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Its an interesting question--why do creationists so often want to meddle in science and quibble about definitions?
Its certainly not to benefit science.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Coyote writes: Its an interesting question--why do creationists so often want to meddle in science and quibble about definitions? They're trying to find semantic loopholes. (And it's easier than doing actual science.)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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cognitive dissonance reduction ...
Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes:
Actually you're right, they don't give a definition of kind in the linked article. But I have previously given my definition in Message 644 No operational definition of "kind" there. However the question of how members of a kind are determined is covered in there. The creationist ‘orchard’diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
The one with the loss of genetic information? It's useless because you can't even tell us how you know whether genetic information is lost or gained...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
But I have previously given my definition in Message 644 No operational definition of "kind" there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: The creationist ‘orchard’diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’ That picture at least begins to clarify to me why you're so obsessed with common descent. So you're left with the elephant and tapir problem - which tree in your orchard do they hang from? And while you're at it, can you enlighten me on clean and unclean. The bible describes them as seperate kinds so they too must have different trees. Pigs and cows on different trees? Pigs on the same tree as rock bagder and camel? How does it work? Presumably the Discovery Institute have published their own taxonomy somewhere?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: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
CRR writes: Well so far we have found that the terms evolution, theory of evolution, species, kinds, microevolution, and macroevolution, can all be clearly defined; just not in a way that everyone agrees with. Definitions seem to be remarkably idiosyncratic. Definitions are context dependent.
This is why evo-biologists can get excited by Trinidad Guppies and Galapagos Finches and say the trivial changes observed are evolution in action. Macroevolution is the accumulation of what you call trivial changes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024