Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9024 total)
55 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: Ryan Merkle
Post Volume: Total: 882,901 Year: 547/14,102 Month: 547/294 Week: 34/269 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 36 (272334)
12-24-2005 12:42 AM


Starting this 1 on 1 as an attempt to answer the questions that Carico has been repeatedly posting to multiple threads.

The point here is a foundation up explaination of evolution.

Carico has agreed, so long as I pick a definition and keep to it and don't take back things I say. I think I can handle that.

So, if someone with admin power would move this to a real thread, I'd appreciate it.

If you need a subject or something to make this an official thread - here we go:

The Theory of Evolution is self apparentent once you have an understanding of the building blocks of the Theory. It can be explained fairly easily.


  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 36 (272336)
12-24-2005 12:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 36 (272342)
12-24-2005 3:10 AM


Carico? You ready?
Thanks for moving this.

Carico, are you ready?

Before we start, let's lay out the ground rules/purposes so that visitors who aren't familiar with either of us will at least know where we are coming from.

It's my contention that the Theory of Evolution is fairly simply and easy to understand. Most of the anti-evolution rhetoric reflects general misunderstanding of the theory, or is a result of an insistance on a timeline not supported by evidence.

I understand that you have asserted an understanding of evolution, however, not having been there when you were learning what you've learned, I have no choice but to start at the beginning.

I further understand that you have a number of questions which I will refer to as "advanced questions". While I am perfectly willing to address these, I would ask that you hold off on them until we've established a foundation of understanding about what the theory does or does not say. You may discover that while setting the ground work of the theory you'll find the answers to the questions on your own.

For my part, I will try to be sensitive to your religious beliefs and refrain from baiting and flaming (two things I've done too much of in the past). I ask that you try to do the same.

Sound fair?

Do you have any requests of me before we start?

This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-24-2005 03:11 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 8:36 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 36 (272392)
12-24-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 3:10 AM


Re: Carico? You ready?
It sounds fair. I'm ready.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 3:10 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 1:50 PM Carico has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 5 of 36 (272477)
12-24-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Carico
12-24-2005 8:36 AM


Basics
Okay, starting off with the basics. I'm not trying to talk down here, just making sure we start from the bottom up.

Key Concepts:

The World is Very Old - While this may disagree with various religious accounts, it is fundamental to the understanding of the Theory that you first understand that the world is billions of years old, rather than a few thousand years old. We could go into great detail explaining how the geologists/nuclear physicists/etc come up with this age, but I don't want us to get mired down.

There is Life on Earth - Seems pretty obvious, but laying the ground work here.

Life on Earth has Certain Things in Common - All life on Earth, be it a bacteria, a rose, or a giraffe, has certain things in common:
1) All life is mortal
2) All life reproduces
3) All life uses genetic building blocks (DNA/RNA) in it's reproduction

There are more things in common as well, but these are the three which are most important to the theory.

Are we in agreement on these three key concepts? If not, I'll go into more detailed explainations of each - but we really can not move forward without these three.

This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-30-2005 09:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 8:36 AM Carico has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 4:24 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 36 (272511)
12-24-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Basics
Everything but the age of the earth. I just read an article where scientists now say that we aren't as old as we think. They said that our "ancestors" are now only 7 million years old. Funny, they keep chaning the age of man ever decade. And I can assure you of one thing; it will change again.

So the age of man and the earth is not an established fact, nor will it ever be an established fact. But one thing is certain: Eye-witnesses put the age of man at under 5,000 years. The rest is all guesswork for scienitists, but not for God. But if they think they know better than God what the age of the earth is, then they will simply be held accountable for it one day since they aren't humble or honest enough to admit their ignorance about it now.

So since the age of man and the age of the earth keeps changing by scientists, then that cannot be an established premise on which we can debate. Debate should only contain facts that don't change with the seasons and that's what I'm interested in in this debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 1:50 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 5:00 PM Carico has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1245 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 7 of 36 (272523)
12-24-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Carico
12-24-2005 4:24 PM


Re: Basics
Well, I'll respond to that in two ways:

First, this article you read may be talking about human ancestory, but even if that date were to change by millions of years either older or younger, it has nothing to do with the initial core concept - "The Earth is Very Old".

I'm not even asking that you accept a specific date for the creation of the Earth. Understanding the Theory of Evolution does not require you to be locked down to the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It could be 2.5 billion. It could be 6 billion.

All I'm saying is that the Earth is very old. Much older than 5 thousand years.

Second, I'm not asking that you accept that the Earth is older than 5 thousand years. I only ask you to accept that in order to understand the Theory of Evolution, you need to grasp the key concept that the Earth is very old.

The goal here is not to convince you that Evolution is correct, it's to give you an understanding of what is or is not being said by the theory of evolution.

Recent questions you've raised on various threads have all met the same response from ToE supporters: "That's not what ToE says".

My goal here is to get you up to speed on what ToE says so you can better participate in the ongoing debates.

So....

"Earth is very old"

Ready to move on? Or are we stuck right here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Carico, posted 12-24-2005 4:24 PM Carico has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 12:58 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 36 (272628)
12-25-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Basics
Sorry, but I'm not going to disagree with God about this. If you think you know better than God about how the world was created, then you are free to pass your wisdom along to others. But I don't think you know better than God, particularly when scientists show their fallibility by changing their minds about the age of the earth. But if you want to believe in shifting sand, then be my guest. I prefer to believe God because His truth is absolute and never changes.

So since we disagree about this, then this premise can't be establisehd. I'm more interested in how one species can turn into another species on its own without being able to breed with that species. And that is what I thought we were debating. Otherwise, we can get sidetracked about anything and everything and never get to the topic at hand.

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 01:00 PM

This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 01:01 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 5:00 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 12-25-2005 1:15 PM Carico has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 2:42 PM Carico has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 9 of 36 (272632)
12-25-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Carico
12-25-2005 12:58 PM


Nuggin is not asking for you to believe
Carico, please note that Nuggin is not asking you to believe anything of what he has or is going to tell you.

He is attempting to explain to you what modern science takes as our understanding of the world. You don't have to believe any of it but you will never understand that view point if you don't note each of the things he explains to you.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-25-2005 01:38 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 12:58 PM Carico has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AdminNWR, posted 12-25-2005 1:18 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 36 (272633)
12-25-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AdminNosy
12-25-2005 1:15 PM


Inappropriate post
Reminder - participation in Great Debate threads is restricted.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 12-25-2005 1:15 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 12-25-2005 1:38 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8954
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003


    Message 11 of 36 (272634)
    12-25-2005 1:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by AdminNWR
    12-25-2005 1:18 PM


    Re: Inappropriate post
    Meant to post in admin mode.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by AdminNWR, posted 12-25-2005 1:18 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1245 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 12 of 36 (272645)
    12-25-2005 2:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Carico
    12-25-2005 12:58 PM


    Re: Basics
    Carico,

    I remind you again, I am not "debating" the age of the Earth with you. I don't care if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or if you believe the Earth is six and a half weeks old. What you believe is not relavent to the discussion.

    What I am trying to answer here is what ToE supporters believe and why they believe it. You have repeatedly asked "advanced questions" about the beliefs of ToE supporters which have shown a general misunderstanding of the basics of the theory. That is what I am trying to correct here.

    If you do not understand the basics, you can't possibly hope to understand the more advanced concepts.

    An analogy would be you asking "How can such a heavy rocket get all the way into space?" but not being willing to learn about "fire".

    If you choose not to try to understand the parts of the theory, that's your choice. You have free will.

    But, if that's the case, I have no choice but to ask the Admins that they bar you from all participation in the science threads as it is impossible for you to contribute to any discussion.

    On a final note,

    Sorry, but I'm not going to disagree with God about this.

    I don't understand this comment from you. Where in the Bible does it say that the Earth is 5,000 years old? The question is rhetorical. The "days" of Creation need not be 24 hour days. (In fact, without a sun or Earth, how could the first "day" be a day as we know it?). Believing in an Old Earth is not incompatible with belief in God, or even belief in Creationism.

    In fact, the YEC dates come not from God, but from Dr. John Lightfoot.

    This message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-25-2005 02:43 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 12:58 PM Carico has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Nuggin has responded

      
    Carico
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 36 (272685)
    12-25-2005 6:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Nuggin
    12-25-2005 2:42 PM


    Re: Basics
    You challeneged me to a debate, not simply for me to agree with everything you say.

    My questions are not advanced at all. They are the basic questions about the feasibility of the theory of evolution: Is it possible for one species to turn into another species without being able to breed with that species? This question gets to the root of whether or not evolution is even possible and one that should have been asked by Darwin himself before expounding on a premise that itself is in question. And since it has not been established by any facts that it's even possible for one species to turn into another one on its own, the rest of the theory is a waste of time if this is not possible. So we're debating the root of the thoery, not "advanced" questions.

    Also, since you have not proven that anyone can know the exact age of the earth, seeing as how scientists change their minds all the time about it, then it cannot be used as a fact in a debate. So simply begin explaining how one species can turn into another one without being able to breed with that species and we can begin the debate.

    This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 06:54 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 2:42 PM Nuggin has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 7:26 PM Carico has not yet responded
     Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 8:09 PM Carico has responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1245 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 14 of 36 (272687)
    12-25-2005 7:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Carico
    12-25-2005 6:53 PM


    Age of the Earth
    Also, since you have not proven that anyone can know the exact age of the earth

    Just for fun, can you prove the exact age of the Earth?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Carico has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1245 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 15 of 36 (272689)
    12-25-2005 8:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Carico
    12-25-2005 6:53 PM


    Your one and only question
    Let's look at your question:

    Is it possible for one species to turn into another species without being able to breed with that species?

    Your question shows a basic miss understanding of what the Theory of Evolution states.

    The Theory of Evolution does not suggest that a species will evolve into another species which already exists.

    In other words: Dogs exist. Cats exist. Theory of Evolution does not suggest that dogs can become cats, or vice versa.

    The Theory of Evolution DOES suggest that dogs can become something other than dogs, cats can become something other than cats.

    So, let's address that.

    Let's talk about concretes - not just "one species" but actual examples.

    "Is it possible for [wolves] to turn into [foxes] without being able to breed with [foxes]?"

    For this, I'm assuming that wolves and foxes can not infact interbreed. If it turns out they can, I'll pick different animals.

    I'd say that we haven't changed the substance of your question?

    Now let's look for more meaning in the question:

    Are you asking, is it possible for me to go about breeding wolves until I end up with a final product which looks like a fox?

    Sure.

    After all, people started with this:


    Click to enlarge

    And ended up with these:


    Click to enlarge


    Click to enlarge


    Click to enlarge

    We could approximate this:


    Click to enlarge

    But if your question is, can you start with a wolf and end up with a creature which can breed successfully with a fox?

    No. And the Theory of Evolution does not suggest that you can. In fact, the Theory of Evoluion would predict that you can't.

    However, the problem with that example is that I'm picking two species which are currently alive.

    Let's try the same question but changing out one of the species for a different one.

    "Is it possible for [Miacas] to turn into [foxes] without being about to breed with [foxes]?"

    You betcha.

    What is Miacas?


    Click to enlarge

    Miacas is a now extinct carnivore that lived between 57.8 to 36.6 million years ago. It is an ancestor to both wolves and foxes.

    However, if it were alive today, it would likely not be able to breed with modern wolves or foxes.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 6:53 PM Carico has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Carico, posted 12-25-2005 11:03 PM Nuggin has responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021