Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
39 online now:
dwise1, vimesey (2 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1081 of 1385 (853494)
05-28-2019 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1058 by Tanypteryx
05-22-2019 3:17 PM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tanypteryx writes:

Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution.


Speciation is "macroevolution"? So a Green Warbler speciating into another Green Warbler is "macroevolution"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Ernst Mayr suggested an eminently more sensible definition - macroevolution occurs only at the level of genus or even higher (an idea he may have stolen from yours truly, btw).

Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs

Other branches of science tell us only how microevolutionary variations within a population occur - no more, no less.

"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences."
Gerd Muller, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.”
https://evolutionnews.org/...questions-of-biological-origins

as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past.

Nonsense. You are evo-extrapolating into the realms of evo-fantasy. There is no way of testing the theory that observed microevolutions can account for the fossil record.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2019 3:17 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-28-2019 1:00 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1107 by caffeine, posted 05-29-2019 2:16 PM Dredge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1082 of 1385 (853495)
05-28-2019 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Phat
05-22-2019 10:45 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
Thugpreacha writes:

I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence


I can appreciate your point of view. I believe creation is so mysterious that I don't try and break it down into something that can be explained. For example, the fossil record can give us a good idea of the history of life on earth, but as for explaining how it happened, I have no idea and I'm happy to accept it as a divine mystery. As for scientific attempts to explain it - forget it; it's a waste of time - all you end up with is dud science like neo-Darwinism.

Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it

The Biblical creation account won't make sense if one reads it literally. The pre-Adamic history of life is presented in symbolic language - because creation is a series of miracles and a literal description it's not important or relevant to the relationship between God and man (which is what the Bible is all about).

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Phat, posted 05-22-2019 10:45 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1083 of 1385 (853496)
05-28-2019 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1064 by PaulK
05-23-2019 1:16 AM


Re: The Evidence Screams For Validation
PaulK writes:

The evidence does not reveal any convenient boundaries or limits that would restrict evolution to the Creationist “kinds”.


Er, except the evidence of thousands of years of animal and plant breeding by humans, who have tried every trick in the book (include unnatural techniques like inbreeding) to change the morphology of various "kinds". No one has yet managed to produce anything even close to the macroevolution required by the Darwinian story.

Even if we reject the “transitional fossil” label for the more descriptive “anatomical intermediate” we do have many such fossils and they do support the idea of evolutionary transitions

You forgot to mention that fossils tell us nothing about HOW evolution proceeded. Fossils don't tell us how Fossil A came to be replaced by Fossil B. Some creations (like me) also accept that “evolutionary transitions” have occurred, but they don’t accept the Darwinian explanations for such transitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by PaulK, posted 05-23-2019 1:16 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1084 of 1385 (853497)
05-28-2019 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1059 by RAZD
05-22-2019 3:21 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
RAZD writes:

There is evidence of gradualism in the forminafera fossil record, and there is evidence of more rapid evolution and stasis (eg punk eek) in the fossil record. All known evolutionary processes.


Punk eek is a "known" evolutionary process"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

You're dreaming - punk eek is no more "known" than aliens performing genetic engineering! Punk eek is just another evo bed-time story - a far-fetched hypothesis (born of desperation) that can't be tested - ie, a pseudo-scientific fantasy that Darwinists are happy to delude themselves with.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2019 6:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1085 of 1385 (853498)
05-28-2019 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1065 by RAZD
05-23-2019 6:46 AM


Re: The Evidence Screams For Validation
RAZD writes:

It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence


If that were true, you would have accepted my "aliens" theory, which is clearly scientifically superior to the nineteenth-century evolution story you can't let go of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1065 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2019 6:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1089 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2019 6:53 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1091 by ringo, posted 05-28-2019 11:57 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 1086 of 1385 (853499)
05-28-2019 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by Dredge
05-28-2019 12:28 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution.


Speciation is "macroevolution"? So a Green Warbler speciating into another Green Warbler is "macroevolution"? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Yep, well typing a bunch of of repeating HAs may be a coherent argument if you're 12.

So, just where and by what biology do you think evolution happens?

Biological evolution in multicellular organisms only happens during a reproductive event between a male and female of the same species.

Do you think there is some organism that is not an individual member of a species, but it is a genus and that it is some how performing macroevolution? Are you daft?

Dredge writes:

Ernst Mayr suggested an eminently more sensible definition - macroevolution occurs only at the level of genus or even higher

No he didn't.

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs


Other branches of science tell us only how microevolutionary variations within a population occur - no more, no less.

No more, huh? Are you sure?

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past.


Nonsense. You are evo-extrapolating into the realms of evo-fantasy.

Nope, I'm just reading reports of interesting new fossil finds all the time.

Dredge writes:

There is no way of testing the theory that observed microevolutions can account for the fossil record.

I'm not familiar with that theory, so I don't care.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:28 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1100 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 5:07 AM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 1118 by Dredge, posted 05-31-2019 12:14 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1087 of 1385 (853500)
05-28-2019 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1076 by edge
05-27-2019 10:04 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
edge writes:

I submit that your 'aliens theory' is not a scientific theory but is still just a belief.
In fact, I would say that it is a 'belief' that you do not really believe.


As a self-described "scientifically trained person" you should know that a scientific theory has nothing to do with personal belief.

Okay, at last, this is your actual belief. Why did you not just say this from the beginning.

I did - weeks ago. Do try and pay attention.

Why all the smokescreen about aliens? Are you admitting to trollism?

No smokescreen. My best scientific explanation for the fossil record is my excellent "aliens" theory. However, it is not my personal belief. You seem to think the "best scientific explanation" must also be a personal belief.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by edge, posted 05-27-2019 10:04 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1090 by edge, posted 05-28-2019 9:23 AM Dredge has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1088 of 1385 (853503)
05-28-2019 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1084 by Dredge
05-28-2019 12:47 AM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Punk eek is a "known" evolutionary process"?

Yes.

See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium

We also know speciation occurs as it too has been oberved.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:47 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1089 of 1385 (853504)
05-28-2019 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1085 by Dredge
05-28-2019 12:54 AM


aliens-did-it is not a scientific theory
RAZD writes:

It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence


If that were true, you would have accepted my "aliens" theory, which is clearly scientifically superior to the nineteenth-century evolution story you can't let go of.

Except it is not logically consistent to propose unknown unobserved aliens when your actual belief is otherwise and there is an existing theory that adequately explains the evidence.

Nor do you have any actual evidence of aliens, nor any actual mechanism for achieving the purported process and you have no evidence of that process being anything other than standard ToE processes ...

... and it doesn't appear to be falsifiable - a drop-dead requirement of any actual scientific theory (but not for pseudoscience twaddle) ...

... unlike the ToE which is falsifiable, and it is chock full of actual observed mechanisms and actual observed processes, so no, it is no consistent with the available evidence no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:54 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1121 by Dredge, posted 05-31-2019 12:24 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1152 by Dredge, posted 06-03-2019 12:54 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1156 by Dredge, posted 06-03-2019 1:24 AM RAZD has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1090 of 1385 (853507)
05-28-2019 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1087 by Dredge
05-28-2019 1:12 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
As a self-described "scientifically trained person" ...

I thought that would bring out a snide comment. Just testing my theory.

... you should know that a scientific theory has nothing to do with personal belief.

That is your opinion. However, one could believe that a scientific theory is valid.

I did - weeks ago. Do try and pay attention.

Believe it or not, I don't read all of your posts. I've had enough brain damage from reading YEC gibberish. This time, it was instructive to juxtapose your 'personal belief" with your "scientific theory" that you don't believe.

No smokescreen. My best scientific explanation for the fossil record is my excellent "aliens" theory.

If your 'theory' is so excellent, you must have evidence to support it, yes?

However, it is not my personal belief. You seem to think the "best scientific explanation" must also be a personal belief.

Well, if you don't believe your 'scientific theory' is valid, then why have you wasted 70(?) some pages professing it? That is practically the definition of trolling.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 1:12 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1122 by Dredge, posted 05-31-2019 12:32 AM edge has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19062
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 1091 of 1385 (853518)
05-28-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1085 by Dredge
05-28-2019 12:54 AM


Re: The Evidence Screams For Validation
Dredge writes:

If that were true, you would have accepted my "aliens" theory, which is clearly scientifically superior to the nineteenth-century evolution story you can't let go of.


If it was "clearly scientifically superior", it would be clear to scientists and not just schoolboys.

Izquierdo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 12:54 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1092 of 1385 (853565)
05-29-2019 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Tanypteryx
05-22-2019 12:26 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Tanypteryx writes:

Dredge writes:

Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense.


Do you have a reference for where he says this?

"Günter Bechly: Rich Fossil Record Says No to Insect Evolution
Posted on March 11, , 2019

On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Günter Bechly, paleoentomologist and former curator for amber and fossil insects for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany, talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about evidence for macroevolution among insects. The fossil record is “saturated,” Bechly says. By that he doesn’t mean there aren’t new fossil forms to discover. Bechly himself has discovered several. He means we have an extensive enough sampling to confidently discern the major patterns of change and stasis in the history of life. And it shows no sign of insect evolution. It shows no transition from marine arthropods to terrestrial insects, none from wingless insects to winged insects, and no gradual evolution to insects (such as beetles and butterflies) that go through a metamorphosis that includes a pupal stage. And evidence for common ancestry is either contradictory or missing. In short, Bechly argues, the insect fossil record is much better explained by intelligent design than blind evolution."

https://www.discovery.org/...ord-says-no-to-insect-evolution


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2019 12:26 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1112 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-30-2019 12:06 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1093 of 1385 (853566)
05-29-2019 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Tanypteryx
05-22-2019 11:24 AM


Re: NO evidence of aliens
Tanyptyerx writes:

And that does not contradict what the fossils DO tell us.


What do the fossils tell us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2019 11:24 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1094 of 1385 (853567)
05-29-2019 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Tanypteryx
05-22-2019 11:45 AM


Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
Tanptyeryx writes:

Science has moved well beyond Darwinian evolution and I am unaware of anyone bothering to "confirm Darwinian evolution" today.


What a strange phenomenon – scientists en masse accepting and dogmatically preaching as a fact a claim that can’t ever be confirmed. I’m trying to think of another example of this in science, but I can’t. I smell a big, fat rat

Well, it is not evidence of anything, because insects DO NOT appear out of nowhere.

Right, so you know better than Gunter Bechly, a world-renowned paleontologist who specializes in insects? With all due respect, I’d say your knowledge of the paleontology of the origins of insects is rather limited (which is perfectly understandable – knowledge of the fossil history of insects is useless and irrelevant to a working biologist) and is probably based on the assumption that evidence for the evolutionary ancestors of insects exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-22-2019 11:45 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1113 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-30-2019 12:35 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1095 of 1385 (853568)
05-29-2019 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1056 by RAZD
05-22-2019 3:00 PM


Re: YEC vs OEC
RAZD writes:

“Progressive creationism … In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."”


You assume this is my position, but your assumption is wrong. Apart from the creation of man, I accept the same history life as you do (although the explanation for that history obviously differs).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021