Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1038 of 1385 (853053)
05-22-2019 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1029 by Dredge
05-21-2019 10:16 PM


Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
What the evolutionary ancestors of a trilobite? Algae? Bacteria?
Are Ediacaran fauna algae or bacteria?
What do you think you are trying to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1029 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 10:16 PM Dredge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1039 of 1385 (853054)
05-22-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:12 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff ...
Except that it makes sense in not relying on some fanciful, unsupported mechanism such as aliens.
... - 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.
That's a nice opinion.
Would you like to hear some others?
That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances.
Yes, gaps explainable by known aspects of the fossil record.
If you had any experience with science, you would understand. But this way, I suppose you are not constrained by facts and you can make up whatever you want.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:12 PM Dredge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1049 of 1385 (853100)
05-22-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
05-22-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
He isn't a YEC, he believes in an old earth. Yes it matters.
IIRC, Dredge has referred several times to the biblical genealogy as some kind of evidence. How does that square with billions of years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 10:38 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:10 PM edge has replied
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:00 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1051 of 1385 (853105)
05-22-2019 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by Dredge
05-21-2019 11:32 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism!
Practically no one adheres to 'Darwinian gradualism' any more. Please try to catch up to the 1970's.
Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.
The point being?
And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious!
You are easily amused by false arguments. What is really pathetic is your complete lack of an intersection with modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by Dredge, posted 05-21-2019 11:32 PM Dredge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(3)
Message 1052 of 1385 (853106)
05-22-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by Faith
05-22-2019 12:10 PM


Re: Progressive Creation
If I'm wrong I hope he'll come by and explain his views better.
That would not be typical troll behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by Faith, posted 05-22-2019 12:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1060 of 1385 (853138)
05-22-2019 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by RAZD
05-22-2019 3:00 PM


Re: YEC vs OEC
IIRC Dredge is an OEC
Apparently, Dredge thinks the earth is billions of years old but humans have only been around for 10ky.
This strikes me as a bit of cognitive dissonance and cherry-picking of the Bible.
In post 556, Dredge comments that the Bible is historical and that the reported genealogies are valid.
It struck me at that time that perhaps Dredge believes the earth to be something 'more than 10ky' in age, which would hardly qualify him as a legitimate old earther.
But we may never really know, considering the cryptic and sometimes contradictory nature of his posts.
Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against.
Good luck on that. I don't know if we can assume that someone is trying to make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2019 3:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by JonF, posted 05-23-2019 9:04 AM edge has replied
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2019 11:23 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1067 of 1385 (853200)
05-23-2019 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1066 by JonF
05-23-2019 9:04 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
I've run into old-Earth-young-life creationists before.
That would be an internally consistent viewpoint, absent other data.
I find it interesting that one can accept the age of the earth, and life itself, to be on the order of billions of years and yet human life to be ten thousand years or less when there is no independent evidence other than religious myth supporting the latter.
In other words, Dredge accepts the radiometric evidence for billions of years, but then insists on the validity of biblical genealogy for the age of the human species. This is my understanding taken from Dredge's posts on this thread. Perhaps I have missed something.
As a scientifically trained person, I just find that to be a curious and questionable way of thinking.
And this does not contradict the fact that I believe he is trolling us with the alien engineering business. It is not clear to me what he really believes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1066 by JonF, posted 05-23-2019 9:04 AM JonF has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1076 of 1385 (853400)
05-27-2019 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Dredge
05-26-2019 11:23 PM


Re: YEC vs OEC
Poor edge; so easily confused - but God bless you for doing your best.
True enough. I am often confused by people who blow trivialities out of proportion with inconsistencies and fanciful tales.
I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began billions of years ago as bacteria.
So, you accept the scientific evidence for old ages and a sequence of life forms over time.
Then man was created instantaneuosly from dirt about 7,000-10,000 years ago.
And here, you reject the scientific evidence for older ages and the evidence for the progression of human ancestors.
This is my belief ... as opposed to my "aliens" theory, which is my scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (you understand of course that a belief and a scientific explanation can be mutually exclusive).
If it is a 'scientific explanation', please inform us of your evidence for such alien intervention, particularly such data that eliminate the possibility of biological evolution.
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.
Over time, more complex life-forms appeared - giving an overall appearance of "evolution". I don't believe this " evolution" is the result of a natural process of biological evolution, but the result of miracles performed by a divine Creator.
Okay, at last, this is your actual belief. Why did you not just say this from the beginning.
Why all the smokescreen about aliens? Are you admitting to trollism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2019 11:23 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Faith, posted 05-27-2019 10:13 AM edge has not replied
 Message 1087 by Dredge, posted 05-28-2019 1:12 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 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 replied

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

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 1104 of 1385 (853583)
05-29-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1100 by Dredge
05-29-2019 5:07 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
You're ignoring my point: You can dig up all the fossils you like, but they don't tell us HOW macroevolution occurred. Neo-Darwinism is found wanting when trying to explain the fossil record:
Of course the fossils themselves do not tell you the mechanism for evolution. We have other known data sets that provide us with a number of mechanisms, both known and documented and others that make sense in a geological framework.
Your argument is irrelevant.
"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
Wow...
So Muller wants to replace 'evolution' with the 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. Is that correct?
That would be devastating to evolution, I'm sure.
The point here is that as our knowledge base grows we see more of the finer details of evolution and see where it needs to be refined. I call this 'learning'. You may have heard of it.
In the meantime, neither Muller, nor Bechly, nor DI, nor you can provide us with a mechanism for intelligent design or 'progressive creation'. Show me a designer. Show me a genetic engineer from the Triassic. Show me a genetic engineering facility from the Cambrian. Show me a 3+ billion year old genetic engineering project that leaves behind no independent evidence of its existence. You may be absolutely correct, but you cannot present any hard, independent evidence for your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1100 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2019 5:07 AM Dredge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1111 of 1385 (853655)
05-30-2019 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1110 by Dredge
05-30-2019 12:34 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
It's got nothing to do with the CC selling out to theistic evolution, but everything to do with reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries ... as opposed to denying reality and clinging to an unenlightened sixteenth-century exegesis.
I suppose you would know more about the inconsistencies of religious beliefs than I would, but how do you know that the CC is not "reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries" also?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1110 by Dredge, posted 05-30-2019 12:34 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1135 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2019 1:02 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1114 of 1385 (853661)
05-30-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1112 by Tanypteryx
05-30-2019 12:06 PM


Re: does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
Thanks for the reference.
That's why I was unaware of him saying this, it was not in a published scientific paper, just his BS opinion at DI, no evidence to back it up.
Are you saying that you don't keep up with the DI propaganda outlets?
Shame on you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1112 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-30-2019 12:06 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1116 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-30-2019 1:00 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1126 of 1385 (853717)
05-31-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1122 by Dredge
05-31-2019 12:32 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
But I do believe it’s valid (except for little matter of falsifiability) - I just don’t believe its true.
Ah, so it's valid but not true. Thank you for the clarification.
Okay, then, let me reword my question. If your theory is not true, why have you spent 70 some pages defending it?
Since when did a scientific theory have to be believed to be a fact to be vaild?
I never said that you believe it or that you should believe it. That's kind of the point.
A valid theory should have some evidence to support it, however. So far, you have not provided evidence that supports your theory at all, much less why it should be preferred over another theory.
Then how are you going to learn?
Learn what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by Dredge, posted 05-31-2019 12:32 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1155 by Dredge, posted 06-03-2019 1:19 AM edge has replied
 Message 1171 by Dredge, posted 06-04-2019 2:59 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1127 of 1385 (853719)
05-31-2019 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1117 by Dredge
05-31-2019 12:02 AM


Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
Translation: “I can’t bring myself to admit that there is no known fossil evidence of evolutionary links between the Ediacaran biota and the Cambrian trilobites.”
Translation of the translation: "I can't possibly bring myself to admit that there is a well-established continuum of life forms from the first signs of life to the modern living communities."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1117 by Dredge, posted 05-31-2019 12:02 AM Dredge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1136 of 1385 (853828)
06-01-2019 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1135 by Minnemooseus
06-01-2019 1:02 AM


Re: YEC vs OEC
I interpreted Dredge's statement as saying the CC is indeed "reinterpreting Scripture in light of scientific discoveries".
That's probably right. I shouldn't inject my comments into religious inconsistencies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1135 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-01-2019 1:02 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024