|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Knowledge and fact are not the same thing. Knowledge is made up of facts and theories. Facts aren't much good without an explanation. I said it's delusional to equate the theory of evolution with knowledge (aka fact). And nobody but you is equating fact with theory."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
See Message 120. Stop lying. Discuss. You can't describe the step-by-step process of even one evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record ... which means you can't claim to know how evolution works."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That's a creationist lie. First, I don't give a flying fuck about "Darwinists". I have never met a "Darwinist". For the most part, "Darwinists" went extinct by the middle of the 20th Century having been replaced by neo-Darwinists via the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics (et alia) -- it's a bit more involved than that summary, so follow the link. Darwin was never able to solve the problem of inheritance, which was solved by Mendel -- ironically (and perhaps anecdotally) a copy of Mendel's monograph was in Darwin's library, but he had apparently never gotten around to reading it. Darwin had tried to solve that problem with his pangenetic theory which basically amounted to a revival of Lamarckian ideas of acquired traits. When biologists rediscovered Mendelian genetics and started to study and experiment with mutation around 1900, they considered Darwinism as having been disproven. In reality, it was Darwin's pangenetics that had been disproven, but not the other aspects of his theory of evolution such as natural selection. One outcome of that early period of genetics is a wealth of quotes from actual scientists stating that "Darwin had been disproven" because just that one of his ideas (ie, pangenetics) was wrong. Of course, that source has been thoroughly quote-mined by creationists. So in the first half of the 20th Century scientists developed a synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics which resulted in neo-Darwinism which employs population genetics, a rigorous mathematical study of the genetics of populations (for Dredge's edification, populations evolve, not individuals). So anyone who is not a neo-Darwinist but rather instead a Darwinist is several decades out of date (rapidly approaching a century out of date). Yet again, we see creationists failing to keep up as they remain mired in old ideas and superseded sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
As for being "anti-science" ... not me. And yet here you are being flagrantly anti-science. Flaming, even.
ringo writes:
What "evolution" are you referring to? But evolution is a fact. And the theory of Evolution is an explanation of that fact. As ringo replies in his Message 299:
ringo writes: Biological evolution. What's confusing about that? Of course, it's biological evolution. That's what we have been talking about all this time and have been explaining to you over and over again.
So what are you talking about? What do you think evolution is? Please describe it as completely as you can. How to you think that evolution works or is supposed to work? Please include what you would consider to be the results or consequences of evolution and explain completely why those would be the results or consequences. What do you think is the evolutionary explanation of how speciation (the formation of a new species) works and happens? Do try to be as specific as you can be. Of course, you will never answer any of those questions. In the past four decades I have never seen any creationist even attempt it, but rather all they ever do is avoid those questions. Why won't any creationist ever answer those basic questions? In part because they have no clue what they are talking about, but rather just mindlessly repeat creationist claims and "arguments" (read "cheap rhetorical tricks") they have heard but do not understand. Although that is obviously true, there's also the simple fact that actual discussion, exchanging of ideas, and learning would be directly counter-productive to their mission:
For most creationists, their mission is to be nothing more than bottom-feeding trolls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
I'm not disputing the evidence for "what happened in the past" - my argument is that no one can know HOW it happened.
Your refusal to address evidence does not make the evidence go away. I think most rational people would agree that we can determine what happened in the past by looking at evidence in the present.
We can even test for specific mechanisms. For example, we observe that there are specific biases in substitution mutations where similar bases tend to get replaced for one another. This means A's tend to be replaced by G's and C's tend to be replaced by T's (and vice versa). These are called transition mutations. Switching out dissimilar bases is called a transversion mutation. We can measure the percentage of transition and transversion mutations happening in modern genomes, in real time. We can then compare genomes between species. Guess what? We see the exact same pattern. The ratios of transition and transversion mutations between species matches the same pattern we observe in mutations happening in the present day.
Which evolutionary transition in the fossil record can you describe step-by-step? ... the mutations involved and how natural selection acted on beneficial mutations?
But of course, you just ignore this evidence because you have deemed it impossible to learn about the past by looking at evidence in the present.
The only reason I can find for doing so is to hold on to your YEC beliefs because I think you know where the evidence is pointing.
I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began eith simple forms perhaps nillions of years ago. I accept that those original life-forms were followed by more complex and diverse forms as time went by ... a process which could be called "evolution".Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Taq writes:
Sure, that's exactly what we see when we employ Darwinist methodology - ie, cherry-pick the data, ignoring anything contradictory. As to evolution, we have that evidence. If evolution did produce those fossils and the biodiversity we see today then we should see a twin nested hierarchy. These would be correlated trees of life for morphology and DNA sequence. That's exactly what we see. You failed to mention the times morpholgy "trees" and DNA "trees" don't match and even produce contradictory results: “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species ...phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.” (Liliana M., D�valos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats ... "Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 87:991-1024). "[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied . . . an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting." (Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 177 (1999)). “disparities between molecular and morphological trees” lead to “evolution wars” because “[e]volutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.” (Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules or Both?,” Nature, 406 (July 20, 2000): 230-233.). “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology" ("Bones, Molecules ... or Both", Nature, 2000). "This assumption (of Pauling and Zuckerkandl, that the degree of similarity indicates the degree of evolutionary relatedness) derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continuous and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systemics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the 'molecular assumption'" (Schwartz andMaresca, "Do Molecular Clocks Run At All?", p.357).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
So, do you have anything newer than 22 years ago?
As sequencing has gotten cheaper and faster we have seen much better protocols and standards for specific regions of the genome to be compared to give useful phylogenetic trees. At the same time there have been ongoing revisions in morphological based taxonomy and this has been a continuous process for as long as people have been doing taxonomy. I don't know if the papers you quote-mined had any part, but critiques and reviews of existing processes in molecular and morphological phylogeny descriptions and comparisons as they developed helped refine and improve this field. Today, in 2022, sequencing has advanced so far that whole genome sequencing is becoming routine and the software algorithms for comparing genomes is keeping pace. Contrary to what you are implying, modern morphology and genetics has evolved into a mature science and our understanding of the evolutionary relationships of living and recently extinct species on this planet is expanding at an increasing rate. It turns out that the genetic history of a species is written in their genome. This is a paper in my field as an example of morphology and genetics working together to produce a new refined phylogeny:
Phylogenetic relationships of North American Gomphidae and their close relatives, Syst Entomol. 2017 April ; 42(2): 347–358. doi:10.1111/syen.12218.JESSICA L. WARE, ERIK PILGRIM, MICHAEL L. MAY, THOMAS W. DONNELLY, and KENNETH TENNESSEN. Meanwhile you ID creationists have shown us absolutely nothing, not a single shred of evidence to support intentional design in biology. ABE: the 1st two authors are geneticists and the last three are morphological taxonomists.Edited by Tanypteryx, . Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Dredge writes: I'm not disputing the evidence for "what happened in the past" - my argument is that no one can know HOW it happened. If by "HOW it happened" you mean the specific DNA sequences of all the involved breeding individuals as well as which individuals bred with which and the specific environmental influences, then we keep saying we don't know, that we can't possibly know evolutionary history at that level of detail. Little evidence was left behind. What we do have is the DNA of their modern descendants and relatives, and quite a bit can be deduced from that. What was the DNA of the specific sperm and egg that came together to create you? We don't know. Would you conclude from that lack of knowledge that we don't know how evolution works? You must somehow imagine that when we're not looking that biology works in some completely different manner. Wouldn't there be copious evidence of this? Wouldn't life that lived and reproduced in a manner biologically different than modern forms have left behind life very different from the actual life we see all around us?
Which evolutionary transition in the fossil record can you describe step-by-step? ... the mutations involved and how artificial selection acted on beneficial mutations? You're just repeating the same claim, that somehow when we're not looking that something different happens than when we are looking. You'r claiming that when we're looking then we see mutations causing modifications that contribute to the next generation, but when we're not looking, which is the vast majority of the time, something else happens. Can you point to any evidence for this? Can you do anything other than repeat the same argument over and over and over again?
I'm not a YEC. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began with simple forms perhaps billions of years ago. I accept that those original life-forms were followed by more complex and diverse forms as time went by ... a process which could be called "evolution". Evolution doesn't guarantee increasing complexity and diversity. Evolution guarantees change because of the lack of 100% fidelity in the genetic copying process and because of epigenetic factors. If you think something else was going on in the ancient past to cause evolution, what evidence is driving your thinking process? --Percy AbE: I missed the "artificial selection" part. Did you actually mean natural selection, or is this an argument for intelligent perhaps divine intervention?Edited by Percy, : AbE. Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Drudge writes: the mutations involved and how artificial selection acted on beneficial mutations? Artificial selection? What the hell are you talking about? Natural selection acts on beneficial and deleterious mutations.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Yep, the science of genetics was so primitive and unreliable 22 years ago that about 35 years ago, law courts worldwide began sending criminals to jail based on DNA evidence.
So do you have anything newer than 22 years ago? As sequencing has gotten cheaper and faster we have seen much better protocols and standards for specific regions of the genome to be compared to give useful phylogenetic trees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You don't know anything about Darwin, do you? ... that's exactly what we see when we employ Darwinist methodology - ie, cherry-pick the data, ignoring anything contradictory."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
I'm talking about natural selection.
Artificial selection? What the hell are you talking about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you for the correction and the eloquent way you expressed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
"A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work." (Wikipedia)
On active duty I was a technician, an electronic computer systems repairman. We had a bookshelf filled with our tech manuals which had several sections. One very important section for every piece of equipment was its Theory of Operation. The other sections listed parts, test procedures, alignment procedures, schematics, etc. But none of that was of much help without the Theory of Operation which explained to us how that equipment worked. That is what a theory does: explain how something works.So we do indeed have multiple theories of internal combustion engines, since there are so many different kinds of those engines. And far more multiple theories of house construction, including many theories of architecture and structural engineering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
... which has caused confusion in my fragile, eggshell mind. The word theory has two different meanings. A dictionary says a theory can also be "a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based."Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, .
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024