Summations Only

Duh.[/qs] You have tautologised yourself into an illogical statement - the process of natural selection requires genetic variation in a population to be present in order for it to act. Think about it ... if there were no genetic variation in the population, all the relevant organisms would be exactly the same, so no particular strain of the population would be selected for survival. (In which case, the entire popularion would survive or the entire population would die.)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dredge says:
It is a "known lie" that Bouroune never said, "This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"?
What "known" proof do you have that he never ever said that? If I read Taq post correctly, he claimed that it is a "known lie" that Bouroune never uttered or wrote the words I quoted. To reiterate, in order make the claim something is a "known lie", one must have "known" proof that it is a lie. This is just simple, inescapable logic.
So I would like to know what this "known" proof is. If no "known" proof that it is a "known lie" is forthcoming, then it is reasonable to conclude that Taq's claim has no basis in fact. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations?("repertoire" is a french word derived from "to repeat")
To humans, these mutations may may appear to be novel, but only because they haven't seen them before. (Consider swans: they were all considered to be white ... until blacks ones were discovered in Australia. The black was not a "new" variation, but simply an unknown one.)Secondly, as I have already pointed out, Peppered Moths were known to produce white and blacks variants, yet the process of natural selection they experienceddue to colour is nevertheless referred to as "evolution". This doesn't seem to support your claim that new characteristics differentiates evolution from natural selection. Evolutionary biologists claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. How can you say this is not a theory?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dredge says: "the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution)." Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent.

Dredge writes:
I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one. You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful. I suggest you have a very odd notion of what "useful" means. How times do you evo's have to be told? Theorising is not a use!
Scientists have an explantion for why the sky is blue. Said explanation is not useful in any practical sense; it's just a theory ... an idea ... a story ... ink on paper. Scientists came up with String Theory to explain a certain observation, but String theory has no practical use. Do you see a pattern here? Coming up with a theory to explain an observation is not necessarily a use.
In a similar way, universal common descent is a theory that attempts to explain an observation, but it is of no practical use. Take away the theory of common descent and every biologist in the world will be able to go about his work unaffected. Common descent is a useless idea."That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957,Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Dredge writes:
Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent. I wonder how all life on earth evolved from a unicellular organism without a process of common descent. The mind boggles.

Dredge writes: First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations? I'm not sure ... yet. My brilliant, but fragile, egg-shell mind just thought of it.

The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, yet is it described as "evolution". In this case, natural selection = evolution.A sausage dog is produced from a wolf - a new variation. Is this evolution?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

What you consider to be a scientific conclusion is actually an absurd extrapolation - observed small changes mean big changes are possible. This extrapolation was inspired by an hallucination induced by an overdose of peyote that Charles Darwin experienced while in South America. He then used the hallucination as the basis for his first science-fiction novel.

Dredge writes: The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, yet is it described as "evolution" The truth is, white and black P. Moths have always existed in the same population. Their frequency changes depending on selection pressures. Everyone knows that ... or should.

Dredge writes:
Theorising is not a use! Remove ToE from human consciousness and pigs will still be a useful source of insulin for diabetics. Ditto for every other useful scientific discovery. In other words, the theory of common descent is an irrelevance to applied science.

One, two or ten, the theory that all life on earth evolved from tiny, widdle primordial critters is a theory of common descent.Dredge has spoken.

Dredge writes:
You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful. One is forced to conclude that a lot of scientific explanations are completely useless and are an irrelevance to applied science. The theory of Black Holes is useless, for example; likewise the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor (the theory of common descent). Of course not. An explanation can be true yet useless to applied science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Acceptance of ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of atheism.