|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This one is just as funny.
Dredge writes: I don't consider myself a Darwinist; I accept the mechanisms involved in evolutionary theory as practised today. It includes natural selection as one of the mechanisms. Darwin was brilliant in his day with the limited amount of information he had available. So, I don't find you calling me a Darwinist as an insult. I wish I had his brilliance. Darwinists are so gullible. If you really want to insult me then call me a Newtonist. I would not appreciate that one at all with my satellite phone and GPS and stuff like like working so well on Einstein's theories...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2114 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined:
|
Dredge is confused. Nothing is confusing about the information you're being hand fed.If you truly wanted to learn about evolution you wouldn't spend so much time deluding yourself with fraudulent claims that have been refuted a thousand times. But you're not here to learn are you.. You are here to be deceitful, to be misleading , to be disingenuous.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Kerkut was a zoologist and physiologist. Not automatically qualified to comment.
1960 was long, long, long ago in science. The full text of his book is available at Full text of "Implications of evolution". It's really something. The introduction is reminiscent of Jack Chick's Big Daddy. He lists seven "assumptions", the first two of which are not premises of the ToE and the rest of which are conclusions from masses of evidence.
quote: Bog-standard creationist BS. Not a reliable source.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, and creationists keep on quoting Kerkut as if nobody else in the world can read that book for free on what my aged mother calls 'The Interwebs'.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Porosity, don't be so bad on him. At least I read quite a few real scientific articles on Genetics because of the false claims Dredge keeps on making. Not that I understand much of it, but, even for a novice like me, it's easy to point out the false claims Dredge made.
Hey, I even passed a first year course in genetics at Uni because of the ridiculously stupid things creationists tend towrite about everything.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused. These are the steps of the scientific method:
As you see, it ends with a conclusion. Common ancestry is a conclusion. Theories are general models which are used to construct hypotheses for specific sets of observations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: Darwinism is a "scientific" attempt to provide a mechanism for how such an evolutionary process might work. But it's still superstition ... scientifically-flavoured superstition. Perhaps you could post something of substance?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Dredge writes: For starters, Darwinism isn't science ... it's pseudo-science. Darwinism is a cult, and there are similarities between any cult and religion. When you can't address the science you start calling the theory a pseudo-science. Classic denial.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Dredge writes: Please translate this into English. They use a phylogeny based on common ancestry to predict protein function.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 878 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Taq writes: Dredge writes:
As you see, it ends with a conclusion. Common ancestry is a conclusion. Theories are general models which are used to construct hypotheses for specific sets of observations. It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. So since the hypothesis of common descent is supposedly supported by "mountains of evidence" provided by the fossil record, embryology, genetics, comparative anatomy, nested hierarchies ... blah, blah, blah, why it is not promoted to the status of "theory". All evolutionary biologists consider common descent to an irrefutable fact, so why it's lowly status as a hypothesis still? Dredge is confused. Exactly, when a hypothesis grows up it becomes a conclusion... not a theory. Just goes to show that those that argue so vehemently against scientific fields know so little about them. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : added quote boxesWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
That's kinda like saying a brick gets promoted to a house. What really happens is that a hypothesis is tested; if it fails the test it's discarded, like a damaged brick. But if it passes the test it becomes a brick in the wall, a plank in the theory. The testing tends to spawn new hypotheses which are tested and discarded or added to the wall. Eventually, you get a house (theory). It's my understanding that if there is enough evidence to support a hypothesis, it gets promoted to a theory. So common descent is just another brick in the wall. Even without it, there would still be a wall.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I agree with Dredge on this. At least as I've always used it a hypothesis may not be "smaller" than a theory, just less well founded.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis.
I agree with Dredge on this. At least as I've always used it a hypothesis may not be "smaller" than a theory, just less well founded.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Similarly, I've heard theories described as "bundled hypotheses", or at least as consisting of bundled hypotheses. The metaphor is like that of a rope (the theory) which is constructed by bundling together many individual filaments (the hypotheses). You can lose a few filaments without losing the rope itself.
This was in the context of creationists trying to disprove evolution through death by a thousand pin-pricks, trying to disprove one or a few individual hypotheses and then declare victory. I guess that's because of their biblical inerrancy mentality in which finding even one single error in the Bible disproves the entire book and their entire religion as well. In contrast, finding a wrong hypothesis has no effect on the theory itself and that wrong hypothesis needed to have been weeded out anyway. Edited by dwise1, : rope metaphor
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: A theory, specifically one like evolution, is not based on one hypothesis. Precisely. We could look at the Theory of Relativity as an example. From that theory, or model, you could hypothesize that starlight would be bent as it passes by the Sun. You can test that hypothesis by measuring the location of stars during an eclipse as well as when the stars are farther away from the Sun. If their position changes with relation to other stars, then the hypothesis is confirmed. You can conclude that starlight is bent as it passes by the Sun. That conclusion supports the larger theory. The Theory of Relativity also makes many other testable predictions about things such as time dilation. Relativity started as a theory, not as a hypothesis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024