|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent. Tangle writes:
I wonder how all life on earth evolved from a unicellular organism without a process of common descent. The mind boggles.
ffs, there's a whole thread on that very subject that does exactly that. How many times? Are you really this dumb?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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?
NoNukes writes:
I'm not sure ... yet. My brilliant, but fragile, egg-shell mind just thought of it.
How would that work exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, yet is it described as "evolution". In this case, natural selection = evolution. That's why natural selection by itself is not the totality of evolution. You also need random mutations (with respect to fitness) producing new variations. A sausage dog is produced from a wolf - a new variation. Is this evolution? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined:
|
Remember, in the case I think is being discussed. The bacteria all came from asexual budding of one bacterium. So they should all have the exact same genome. And they were not resistant. Therefore the resistance had to have come about from mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I wonder why a creationist who believes in thousands of original ancestors cannot conceive of evolution from more than one original ancestor.
The theory of evolution does not require one common ancestor; there could be more. The best evidence we have indicates one, but things do get pretty blurry that far back. But when you get right down to it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Well, when you have some analysis demonstrating how it would fit with all current observations of mutations and some evidence of it actually happening, we can talk.
Personally I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be she!) arranges each mutation individually according to Her Plan, unfathomable by mortals. Prove me wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I wonder how all life on earth evolved from a unicellular organism without a process of common descent. The mind boggles. Hasn't this question been asked and answered many times in this thread? The theory of evolution allows that there may have been more than one path of evolution from a unicellular organism. That's why common descent is not essential. In fact, when someone says that common descent is not necessarily the case, that is exactly the same thing as saying that all life on earth did not necessarily evolve from the same unicellular organism. That answer is something you should have been able to supply yourself. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, yet is it described as "evolution" In this you are just wrong. The peppered moth is one of the relatively small set of cases where both the specific mutation, and the date of its appearance are supported by scientific evidence. This particular detail has been the source of much discussion in these forums. I find it amusing that you would simply assert the opposite without checking first. There are plenty of other cases that have been noted. Most of them involve mutations that are dominant, and therefore could not have been hiding out in the population undetected. Also well discussed in previous thread. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
You have tautologised yourself into an illogical statement Uh, no, that is impossible. A tautology is always true, just trivially true. The rest of your drivel is pure idiocy, which I guess is standard creationist fare.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Dredge writes: I wonder how all life on earth evolved from a unicellular organism without a process of common descent. It is most probable that all life on earth has a single common ancestor but it isn't necessary for the ToE that that is true. The most commonly cited other possibility is that there are two; one for bacteria and one for archaea and eukaryotes. It makes no difference at all to the ToE which of those is true or if another version is true. It also makes no difference at all to creationist arguments about it. What WOULD make a difference to the idea of common descent would be your crazy and unsupported idea of organisms descending from thousands (millions?) of individual 'kinds a few thousand years ago. So all you have to do is prove that to be true and collect the Nobel Prize. It should be very, very easy to do - evidence should be everywhere. Why haven't your side done it?
The mind boggles. Yes, we can see that your mind is boggled.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: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful. Since the entire purpose of science is to explain observations, it kind of goes without saying.
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. Are you saying that this explanation is not true because it is not "useful" in your estimation?
In a similar way, universal common descent is a theory that attempts to explain an observation, That is false. Universal common descent is a conclusion, not a theory. It is also of practical use, such as the SIFTER algorithm that can predict protein function:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Dredge writes: The Peppered Moth case didn't involve new variations, Yes, it did. The new variation was the black color caused by mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Creationists have been nipping at the heels of the Theory of Evolution for 150 years, all to no effect.
But the gyrations they go through and the "silver bullets" that are going to slay evolution (but never do) are sometimes pretty funny. What's not so funny are the lies and self-delusions that you can find in creationist books and websites.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The only reason there as been "no effect" is that the ToE is not subject to testing/replication like normal science is. It's all a matter of interpretation and once the establishment is committed to it fat chance it's going to be seriously reconsidered anytime soon. Or, since some here and there do rethink it and give it up, fat chance the truth will ever become recognized by the establishment as a whole, barring supernatural intervention to open the eyes. There are good arguments on both sides it seems to me, but those against the ToE should have killed it long ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Theory of Evolution thinks the root is LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), Creationists think the roots are the created kinds. So give us a list of your 10 best prospects for original created kinds (you should have hundreds), and we'll tell you who we think their ancestor population was ... and who the ancestor population of that ancestor population was ... So either that will invalidate the concept of created kind or redefine it to the older ancestors ... and we can repeat the process. If your view is correct then we should reach a point where we can't find ancestor populations. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024