|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
K.Rose in Message 367 writes: I’m not here to demonstrate anything one way or another, I’m simply asking the question of how the Macroevolution that is fed ubiquitously to the public can be substantiated. Evolutionary biology is accepted science, and accepted science is what is commonly accepted as science by the public and what is taught in public schools. Your alternative is supernatural, which is not accepted science and so is not commonly accepted as science by the public and is not taught in public schools. If you would like your views to be perceived as science by the public and to be taught in public schools then you must work to make them part of accepted science, which as I described earlier, CRS, ICR, Answers in Genesis, and so forth, all failed to do. Because creationism is religion, not science. There was a federal court case back in 2005 (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia) where intelligent design and creationism were ruled to be religion, not science.
Nested hierarchies based on statistical analyses of microbiological classifications do not substantiate or demonstrate this. How so? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
it is clear that he wants religious dogma to be preached in school, rather than having science taught.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Taq writes: For example, why is there an exact match between the phylogeny based on morphology and the phylogeny based on the sequence of cytochrome c for 30 taxa? ID/Creationism can't explain this. Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing the human and chimp genomes? Evolution perfectly explains it, but I have yet to see any proponent of ID/Creationism even begin to explain it. Why is there more sequence conservation in exons than in introns when comparing the same gene across diverse vertebrate species? Again, this is EXACTLY what we expect to see with evolution and common ancestry, but I have yet to see any proponent of ID/Creationism even begin to explain it. Even the most basic observation in biology, that of a nested hierarchy, can't be explained by ID/Creationism, but it is EXACTLY what we would expect to see from evolution and common ancestry. I don't think K.Rose understands these issues well enough to grasp why they are fatal to his claims. Maybe it would help to focus on just one, and not the nested hierarchy one because I think he won't be able to overcome his "God could have done it any way he liked" point of view, regardless of the probabilities. You'd have to put things in simpler terms, and you'd have to make sure to define the terms. I like the exon/intron example, and if K.Rose is familiar with the terms even better. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Percy writes: Maybe it would help to focus on just one, and not the nested hierarchy one because I think he won't be able to overcome his "God could have done it any way he liked" point of view I suspect that this will be the reply to any and all evidence. It's really nothing more than a handwave. It could be used to explain anything in nature. Why do planets take the paths they do around the Sun? God just does it that way, it isn't gravity. Why do we find microorganisms associated with certain diseases? That's just the way God does it, so I reject Germ Theory. It's an all purpose denial of all science. As Romanes put it clear back in 1882:
quote: And more to the point . . .
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: |
Percy in Message 391 writes: K.Rose in Message 367 writes: Nested hierarchies based on statistical analyses of microbiological classifications do not substantiate or demonstrate this. How so? I don't think K.Rose knows what microbiological means.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9627 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
K.Rose thinks that the earth is 6,000 to 7,000 years old; the ToE is way down the list of things he needs to be put right about.
The fact is that to believe the things he believes he has to reject all of science - physics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology, chemistry, biology, archaeology etc etc etc. There probably isn't a single branch of science that isn't involved in his Great Lie. He CAN'T examine any of these subjects or look at any of the evidence we present because to do so would break him. Besides, he simply knows it's wrong. He more than likely thinks that he talks personally to god - they usually do - so of course nothing human can contradict that. At the very least he thinks that the bible is inerrant which is the craziest thing of all because it's easily shown to be internally errant , let alone externally in the real world. He's not going to look at anything we show him, in fact he's probably forbidden to.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member Posts: 191 Joined: |
But that is exactly what you said Taq's graph showed ... common design Yes, I agree that Taq's graph shows common design.
complete with an entire history of mutations spanning millions of years. Biut I do not accept Taq's interpretation (or yours) of the graph. That interpretation is, as I said, not necessarily so. You are interpreting the graph under an evolutionary assumption. I am not. I agree that the graph as shown could support an evolutionary view. But it also could just as easily support common design. I should point out too, that the graph as Taq posted is quite cherry picked. That section is in no way the whole of the data, and the rest of the data by the UCSC is not as nicely lined up as Taq tries to show. I would also question Taq's statement that "There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function." This may hinge on specifically which 'sequence'(s) are meant, but the latest research is showing that introns have much function..... just as ID predicted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
WookieeB writes:
Yes, I agree that Taq's graph shows common design.
How does it show this? Why would common design produce that specific pattern of sequence conservation?
Biut I do not accept Taq's interpretation (or yours) of the graph. That interpretation is, as I said, not necessarily so. You are interpreting the graph under an evolutionary assumption. I am not. Please tell us why the observed pattern of sequence conservation is not what evolution would produce?
I agree that the graph as shown could support an evolutionary view. But it also could just as easily support common design. Again, how does it show this? Why would common design produce that specific pattern of sequence conservation?
I should point out too, that the graph as Taq posted is quite cherry picked. That section is in no way the whole of the data, and the rest of the data by the UCSC is not as nicely lined up as Taq tries to show. How is it cherry picked? You can go to the UCSC genome browser yourself and look at many different genes. You will see the same pattern. https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?db=hg38&lastVirt...
I would also question Taq's statement that "There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function." This may hinge on specifically which 'sequence'(s) are meant, but the latest research is showing that introns have much function..... just as ID predicted.
What research?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Why would He have to be a woman? Oh, Jessica H. Christ! Are you really that slow? Do you still think that all sedimentary rock is accreted meteoric dust? To you still think that a hybrid (eg, a mule) is a new "kind"? Again, the way that parthenogenesis (AKA "Virgin Birth") works is that the female produces offspring all on her own without benefit of a male. Those offspring are genetic copies of the mother, effectively clones. Part and parcel of that producing exact genetic copies of the mother is that they all get the same sex determiners as the mother, which will means that they will ALL be the same sex as the mother: FEMALE. That is of course disregarding post-conception sex changes such as can be caused due to incubation temperature in some fish and crocodilians, but then mammals are not as subject to that. Therefore, were "Jesus" the product of parthenogenesis, then "he" would very necessarily have been female. Do I need to use crayons to draw that picture for you?
{ usual nonsense } Then you just went into making up ghost stories.
Jessica H. Christ! NOTE:
Follow that link. It starts out investigating that middle initial and then goes into Christograms, a form of religious art. You might find it interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23144 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
WookieeB in Message 397 writes: I would also question Taq's statement that "There is very little, if any, sequence in introns that has sequence specific function." This may hinge on specifically which 'sequence'(s) are meant, but the latest research is showing that introns have much function..... just as ID predicted. Taq definitely did not say introns have no function. Taq said they have "very little...sequence specific function." That introns lack sequence specific function is why their sequences are not conserved in the way that exons are. But though intron nucleotide sequences are not usually expressed, introns do have function (gene regulation is one, I think), which is what I think you were saying, but Taq was not saying anything different. I'll defer to Taq any explanation of intron function. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Percy writes: Taq definitely did not say introns have no function. Taq said they have "very little...sequence specific function." That introns lack sequence specific function is why their sequences are not conserved in the way that exons are. That's an accurate description. Just to use a counterexample, many microRNA's are found in introns. They have sequence specific activity, and their sequences are also strongly conserved. In fact, the pattern of sequence conservation in microRNA's is also really strong evidence for evolution. We see a lack of conservation in the loop structure and strong conservation in the stem sequence which contains the miRNA target sequence. But that is probably a bit much for this thread. For the vast majority of intron sequence its only function is as bulk DNA sequence. Nearly any sequence will do outside of few bases around the exon/intron junctions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 356 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
I hear you and I understand that macroevolution and universal common ancestry are the amongst the biggest objections creationists have, with the common ancestry of humans and apes being perhaps the biggest problem. My concern though is that you appear to have an inaccurate - if familiar - view of what macroevolution is and what it entails. To be clear;
Microorganisms can undergo macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply change at or above species level. There is no reason why microbes can't display change above species level and indeed they do exactly that. Macroevolution in microbes is still macroevolution. Do you take issue with that or are we on the same page?
Macroevolution is not a dog giving birth to a non-dog. That is not an accurate characterisation of macroevolution nor is it a prediction of the Theory of Evolution. In fact, if we observed a dog giving birth to a non-dog it would destroy the ToE. Do you take issue with that or are we on the same page? I've got to say, if you take only one thing away from this conversation I wish it could be that you understood that evolution does not predict such things. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined:
|
OK, I was thinking you were going to explain why this is incorrect:
Tanypteryx in Message 340 writes: All this "give birth to a wholly different lifeform" nonsense is just shorthand for dogs giving birth to porkypines or some other wholly different lifeform. Or why K.Rose using "lifeform" as a term in a discussion of biological evolution is more appropriate than "species or population" that everyone else uses as the basic taxonomic term. I am a wholly different lifeform than you, or my sister or any other human, let alone a different species, so your mother gave birth to a wholly different lifeform when she gave birth to you. Every individual organism on this planet is a wholly different lifeform from every other lifeform. All Hail the Great Insect Queen of All Universes Edited by Tanypteryx, . 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Through all of this argle-bargle I have come to understand that my contention with TOE is in the Macroevolution that is fed to countless middle-schoolers and the general public in digestible chunks, as discussed in my entries immediately previous. Wow! You're all over the place. First you show up close to talking about biological evolution (which is an integral part of what life does), but in that process you believed that there is some single Science Authority which arbitrarily defines everything and mandates a "Science Dogma" that everybody must believe and teach. No, that is not even close to being remotely near the neighborhood. Science does not work that way nor ever could work like that. Rather, that is how churches and religions work. You are projecting. Then you try to foist off on us the idea that evolution is a "worldview". Again a clear miss (instead of just simply firing wildly downrange, you turned around and targeted the parking lot). Biological evolution (which is what we are talking about, so what the hell are you talking about?) is not even close to being a "worldview", any more than chemistry, orbital mechanics, ballistics, or Ohm's Law are "worldviews". Again, you are projecting. Then you identified your bizarre "evolution" as being EvolutionISM, which creationists routinely neglect to define and also refuse to define when called on it. The best we can gather over the decades from creationist hand-waving is that it's supposed to be some kind of pseudo-religious philosophical worldview (Ooh! There's that word again!) which is fundamentalist atheistic. And you [plural] falsely claim that your made-up -ISM boogyman is the same thing as evolution. Again, absolutely wrong! Corollary to your EvolutionISM is that equally loaded and intentionally undefined word which you led off with in your OP (Message 1): evolutionist. The best we can figure from what creationists have let slip is that an "evolutionist" is simply someone who accepts evolution, but then you [pl] overload that term with many highly pejorative qualities including atheism and anti-Christian intent. One of the ironic parts of that is that most of the people who accept evolution (ie, actual evolution not your nonsensical boogyman) are theists with many of them being Christians, yet you would call them all "evolutionists" and characterize them as "atheists." Now you have settled on rephrasing your opposition to "evolution" (in quotes since we still do not know what you are talking about, but then neither do you, do you?) thus:
K.Rose writes: ... my contention with TOE is in the Macroevolution that is fed to countless middle-schoolers and the general public in digestible chunks, ... And again, you are contradicting yourself. As Mr. Jack describes in his Message 386 and as you yourself complained about in your OP (Message 1), the whole highly accurate version of science with nothing left out is too much for the children and the general public, so for them to at least start to understand science must be summarized and simplified and, well, dumbed down for them to be able to start to comprehend. So we have real science as it's practiced and studied by highly educated people. The evidence that you keep demanding us to present exists at the post-graduate level and is extremely voluminous (no single book can contain it, rather it fills libraries) and requires a helluva lot of time and effort to work through and with, but it's more than enough to have turned a young-earth creationist (YEC) intent on learning the evidence in order to refute evolution instead change to accepting evolution because of the immense evidence. That's Dr. Mary Schweitzer, PhD Biology, whom I've written about before and most recently in my Message 308. While still a believing and practicing Christian, she is no longer a YEC and indeed is very upset with creationists for constantly lying about her research. So to make science more accessible we have popular science which provides the "digestible chunks" that you complain about. That is the effort which dos the summarizing, simplifying, even dumbing down of science to make it more accessible to the general public. Indeed, from that article:
Wikipedia: So you come in demanding exacting scientific knowledge, but in a simplified "dumbed down" form (explicitly rejecting "explanations of evolution that require an essay or a book", but then you reject that and here even condemn it.
Make up your mind! Though it is obvious to us that regardless of what we may present to you, you will still reject it, most often without even looking at it. We have a lot of experience with creationists and you are obviously no different. But there is something of a problem to how evolution (and much of the rest of science) is taught in K-12. And I discuss it in that same Message 308, so do please read that. Oh, OK! Since you won't bother to go to Message 308, I'll have to bring that part to you here:
dwise1 in Message 308 writes: So why don't we see all that detailed evidence being presented starting in first grade? For many reasons, a few of which would be:
The way to solve the problems with science education is by improving it and correcting the errors. Instead, the creationist "solution" is to destroy science education. No, thanks! So while the smart solution to the problems with science education would be to improve it, your "solution" is to destroy it. Why? If anything, if you wanted the next generation to continue your fight against evolution, then you would want them to learn everything they possibly could about evolution. If "evolution" is your enemy, then by keeping yourself and your followers ignorant of that enemy can only result in defeat:
quote: Letting your children learn everything they can about evolution, including what it actually is, will ensure that they will know the actual problems with evolution (every theory has problems) and be able to concentrate their efforts there (eg, in WWI trench warfare, they kept attacking the other side's strongpoints to no avail, instead of finding the weak spot and concentrating their attack there, something that the Germans realized too late; think Keil und Kessel ("Wedge and Bucket") ). Also, knowing what evolution actually is will allow them to concentrate their efforts against their actual proclaimed enemy instead of wasting those efforts on the non-existent strawmen that you are wasting your own time on. Plus it will keep them from losing their faith when they discover that you had been lying to them all their lives. We have already seen far too much of that, made all the sadder since it is completely unnecessary. Your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
Microorganisms can undergo macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply change at or above species level.
I think it needs to be made clear that this is not a different process from microevolution and that there is not a clear line of one day a brand new species. It is just that the species today is different than its ancestors 10,000 years ago. A very large spectrum as it were.Does that make sense? Was I clear? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025