Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 241 of 698 (915168)
02-10-2024 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
02-10-2024 9:33 AM


Agreed, 100% can never/almost never be attained. Offhand I can't think of anything that does, nor anything that might potentially do so.
Regarding morphology, relatedness, and species designations: The concept of common ancestry - maybe this is better described as something else, perhaps? - is the part of evolutionary biology that put its supporters at such stark, sometimes virulent odds with the Creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 9:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 6:17 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 8:33 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2024 1:25 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 274 by DrJones*, posted 02-11-2024 1:41 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 242 of 698 (915171)
02-10-2024 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by K.Rose
02-10-2024 5:42 PM


K.Rose in Message 240 writes:
however, all genetic evidence points to a Creator.
‚Äč
However, you present NO supporting evidence.
Please not that I would not conspire to prevent biologists from pursuing the common ancestry conclusion, nor would I forcibly prevent them from pursuing this, nor intimidate them into abandoning the pursuit, nor force-feed them my views.
Please note, you could not accomplish any of that, even if you wanted to.
Also, the fact that you have drawn a conclusion from a set of evidence does not make that conclusion fact.
Without a shred of supporting evidence, everything you wrote can be dismissed as pure BS.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it 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
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 5:42 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 7:32 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 243 of 698 (915172)
02-10-2024 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by K.Rose
02-10-2024 5:42 PM


How old is the earth K. Rose?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 5:42 PM K.Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 7:33 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 278 by ICANT, posted 02-11-2024 2:22 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 244 of 698 (915173)
02-10-2024 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by K.Rose
02-10-2024 5:56 PM


K.Rose in Message 241 writes:
The concept of common ancestry - maybe this is better described as something else, perhaps? - is the part of evolutionary biology that put its supporters at such stark, sometimes virulent odds with the Creationists.
No, what puts evolutionary biologists at odds with creationists is when creationists attempt to force their creationist bullshit into science classrooms.
And why would we want to describe common ancestry as something else when common ancestry is the perfect description of common ancestry that everyone already understands.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it 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
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 5:56 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 245 of 698 (915174)
02-10-2024 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by K.Rose
02-10-2024 5:24 AM


K.Rose in Message 200 writes:
The Macroevolution link you provided, unintelligible to most laymen, discusses common materials found across lifeforms, which is as much or more of an argument for a Creator. Much as a refrigerator or bicycle manufacturer would re-use favorable design features across various products.
The link Taq provided was to the section on Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1. It makes clear that nested hierarchies cannot be formed from things like refrigerators or bicycles, and it clearly explains why. The nesting is a reflection of the evolutionary branching that took place in the past, something that doesn't happen with refrigerators or bicycles.
A nested hierarchy means that the phylogenetic tree is objectively formed, which means the node characteristics (primarily DNA) drive the organization. With refrigerators and bicycles many tree-like organizational structures are possible. One person might organize bicycles with manufacturers at the top level, bicycle types at the next level, and size at the next level. Another person might put bicycle types at the top level and manufacturers next. Other manner of organization are possible, too.
But with a nested hierarchy only one organization is consistent with node characteristics. This means that only one node qualifies for the top position. For mammals the top node would be the common ancestor of all mammals. The top node could never be, for example, cetaceans, because no mammalian order, like primates, rodents and carnivores, are descended from cetaceans. DNA analysis makes this very, very clear.
A nested hierarchy means you have a tree with evolutionary branching. Life isn't the only thing that produces a nested hierarchy. Languages do, too. If I come across other things that produce a nested hierarchy I'll mention them.
Besides, at issue is the key dynamic of evolution, the linchpin, the one that is foisted ubiquitously on the public, which asserts that one higher life form (mammal, reptile) can eventually procreate to a completely different higher life form.
Evolution occurs in all life, not just in "higher" life forms, and again, "higher" isn't really meaningful.
Evolution is an accepted scientific theory and is no more foisted on the public than any other accepted scientific theory. You're free to believe evolution is wrong and misguided and atheistic and whatever else you like. No one can stop you. But if you want to knock evolution from its perch as accepted science then you're going to have to do science yourself and produce the evidence that accomplishes that.
But this has already been tried. ICR, CRS, Answers in Genesis and a host of others all tried to make inroads into scientific circles to make creationism or Intelligent Design into accepted science, and they all failed. Because they're religion, not science.
Sometimes "Einstein was wrong" people come here. They, like you, complain about a false theory being foisted on the public.
Where is the evidence and certainty for that presented, beyond the explanation "Life Form A shares traits with Life Form B and somewhere in-between is where the evolution happened"?
Again, there is no certainty within science. All science is tentative.
And evolution is ubiquitous. Evolution occurs every time there is reproduction. How could that not be so given that mutations are inevitable and selection is unavoidable?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by K.Rose, posted 02-10-2024 5:24 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 246 of 698 (915175)
02-10-2024 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Percy
02-10-2024 9:51 AM


It's important to recognize that the unknown outweighs the known. This is the purpose for empirical testing - it's a big step in removing the unknown as a factor.
As a starting point it's reasonable to assume that past life has been lived much as it is today, in general, and albeit in much less physical/material comfort and with far mor day-to-day threat to life and health.
But the unknown outweighs the known. We can take the scraps of data that we do have and put together an explanation of how it all went down, giving meticulous consideration to each data point. But, absent any proper record-keeping, we can never really be certain of how accurate that explanation really is.
- Ancestry.com may be one of the foremost DNA experts, I don't know. But based on the timing and presentation of their product hey seem to be more oriented toward curious pre-neophytes, rather than actual biologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 9:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 8:52 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 247 of 698 (915176)
02-10-2024 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
02-10-2024 10:32 AM


Throughout this string I have requested empirical testing that demonstrates common ancestry for all life forms. I have yet to see it. However, here is an aggregate summary of the responses I have received:
"Many highly knowledgeable scientists have been working on this for a very long time, and this explanation represents their conclusions. Anyone who challenges this explanation is either uneducated in the matter or willfully ignorant."
Again, with no empirical test data presented, and no accounting for the unknowns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 02-10-2024 9:00 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2024 12:30 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 270 by Theodoric, posted 02-11-2024 12:30 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 271 by AZPaul3, posted 02-11-2024 1:08 AM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2024 1:57 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22689
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 248 of 698 (915177)
02-10-2024 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Granny Magda
02-10-2024 10:38 AM


I subscribe to the Times - I think I might have read that article when it first came out. Yes, this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned law enforcement tracking down criminals.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Granny Magda, posted 02-10-2024 10:38 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 249 of 698 (915178)
02-10-2024 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
02-10-2024 11:14 AM


It is supposition, that's why it is prefaced with "It appears".
See Message 247 for an example of why it appears this way, a.k.a, Fact as Established by the Concurrence of the Credentialed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2024 11:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by PaulK, posted 02-11-2024 2:08 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 250 of 698 (915179)
02-10-2024 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Tanypteryx
02-10-2024 3:00 PM


As an aside, I have always thought coin tosses were an error prone way of demonstrating probabilities. A person flipping the coin cannot help but apply different forces to the coin with each flip, and it seems to me that would really widen the error bars on predictions.
Also, most coins are not perfectly balanced, as with US coins whose heads side has more metal than the tails side. This would bias the flip slightly to prefer one side over the other, so that it's not a pure 50/50 probability. Ever so slight, but in a large number of tosses that bias should show up.
Also, there's a third possible event, namely the coin ending up on its edge -- that was even used in a film where the coin landed on the floor and rolled up against the wall. Extremely unlikely, but still possible. After all, adding those two green numbers to the other 36 numbers on a roulette wheel biases the otherwise pure odds in favor of the house. That's how the casino makes money ... unless it's owned by Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 3:00 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 251 of 698 (915180)
02-10-2024 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by AZPaul3
02-10-2024 12:19 PM


I don't mind that there are those that there are those who disagree with me vehemently. I have come to expect this on every front of life. So I choose my battles very carefully.
In this matter a large-scale misrepresentation is being foisted on the public, even though it may be as subtle as "it is" vs. "it seems to be".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2024 12:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2024 10:33 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 02-11-2024 7:28 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 252 of 698 (915181)
02-10-2024 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by dwise1
02-10-2024 2:00 PM


Yes 100% is a high bar, and in other posts I have addressed the fact that this essentially unachievable. But it remains the goal, the thing against which we can track the progress of our efforts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2024 2:00 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 253 of 698 (915182)
02-10-2024 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Tanypteryx
02-10-2024 6:06 PM


You are correct, I do not have any empirical test data that conforms to the Scientific Method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2024 6:06 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
K.Rose
Member (Idle past 117 days)
Posts: 140
From: Michigan
Joined: 02-02-2024


Message 254 of 698 (915183)
02-10-2024 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Tangle
02-10-2024 6:08 PM


I don't have the exact number, but somewhere between 6000-7000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Tangle, posted 02-10-2024 6:08 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by kjsimons, posted 02-10-2024 9:08 PM K.Rose has not replied
 Message 281 by Tangle, posted 02-11-2024 3:36 AM K.Rose has replied
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 02-11-2024 7:32 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 255 of 698 (915184)
02-10-2024 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Theodoric
02-10-2024 3:32 PM


there are no human clones.
And yet ICANT worships a human clone, though he has the gender completely wrong.
Biologists are well aware of parthenogenesis (AKA "Virgin Birth") and have studied it thoroughly, I'm sure. There are species in which a female can produce offspring without benefit of a male -- that was even a plot device in Jurassic Park when the dinosaurs started reproducing on their own (they blamed the frog DNA used in reconstructing their genomes). While it has been observed in several animals, including a few vertebrates such as some fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, it has not been observed to occur in mammals in the wild, though it has been induced artificially in mice.
One of the things about parthenogenesis is that the offspring it produces are genetically identical to the mother. In the case of the XY/XX sex determination mechanism, that would mean that they would all be female. Which means that "Jesus" would have to have been a woman, hence the more accurate exclamation: "Jessica H. Christ!".
Share and enjoy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Theodoric, posted 02-10-2024 3:32 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by ICANT, posted 02-11-2024 1:56 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024