Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8936 total)
296 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 295 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,908 Year: 16,944/19,786 Month: 1,069/2,598 Week: 315/251 Day: 43/43 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 43 of 1311 (807473)
05-03-2017 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dredge
05-03-2017 3:04 AM


Yes, sorry; your defintion of evolution is heritable change in a population. So what's this got to do Darwin? Heritable changes in a population has been a known fact for thousands of years.

Yep. Millennia, even.

Darwin proposed a theory of how it happened.

A distinction which you appear to be unable to comprehend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 3:04 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 44 of 1311 (807474)
05-03-2017 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dredge
05-03-2017 3:27 AM


People were clearly already well aware of the mechanism of natural/artificial selection and its effect on a popularion, so what did Darwin come up with that advanced knowledge of "evolution" (ie, heritable changes on a population)?

They were not already well aware that the process, when continued for long periods of time, resulted in wildly different species.

Darwin figured it out and called his book "Origin of Species". It was about how different species originated; i.e. how they came to be different species..

Edited by Admin, : Fix use of bold dBCode.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 3:27 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2017 5:35 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 246 of 1311 (809344)
05-17-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dredge
05-17-2017 7:40 PM


He said the respective observations can just as easily be used as arguments for Intelligent Design!

Easily said. Much more difficult to demonstrate. Let's see the arguments for ID based on that evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2017 7:40 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dredge, posted 05-19-2017 8:16 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 325 of 1311 (810001)
05-22-2017 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by CRR
05-22-2017 6:45 PM


Re: Re: Useful applications of evolutionary theory and processes
Not what he asked for. Homologs are not required for mutations to accumulate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by CRR, posted 05-22-2017 6:45 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 469 of 1311 (811556)
06-09-2017 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by CRR
06-09-2017 3:41 AM


Re: Junk
Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA.

Their definition of "function" differs greatly from the common one in biology and even they have admitted that they way overstated their case. Transcription does not equate to any meaningful definition of biological function.

On the Meaning of the Word "Function"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by CRR, posted 06-09-2017 3:41 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 486 of 1311 (811954)
06-13-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by CRR
06-13-2017 5:08 AM


Re: maybe we should cholera a new vaccine ...
Talkorigins is chock full of evidence disproving your fantasy so you go with the ad hominem fallacy. Obviously that's all you got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by CRR, posted 06-13-2017 5:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 555 of 1311 (812922)
06-21-2017 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 542 by Dredge
06-20-2017 9:31 PM


Re: maybe we should cholera a new vaccine ...
I didn't say Talk Origins is an atheist web site

quote:
I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.

Your claims are recorded. Don't lie about them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Dredge, posted 06-20-2017 9:31 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Dredge, posted 06-24-2017 12:01 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 631 of 1311 (813515)
06-28-2017 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 630 by CRR
06-28-2017 8:19 AM


Re: define "species"
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place.

What is it with creationists and all/some/none?

The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases.

Logic fail.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 630 by CRR, posted 06-28-2017 8:19 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by CRR, posted 06-28-2017 5:18 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 647 of 1311 (813612)
06-29-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by CRR
06-28-2017 5:18 PM


Re: define "species"
What is it with creationists and all/some/none?
The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases.

Logic fail.


I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?

Er, I tried to say what I said, in simple unambiguous English.

You wrote:

Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species.
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place.


  • Tangle's "Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.'" is mocking your "we know them when we see them" referring to kinds.
  • Several people have pointed out that in some cases new species are difficult to identify, but in most cases identifying a new species is easy.
  • Therefore we can tie speciation to macroevolution because in almost all cases we can identify when speciation has taken place.
  • You took "some cases" to mean "all cases" in typical creationist fashion and said we can't tie speciation to macroevolution (obviously meaning in all cases, otherwise you would have inserted a caveat).
  • I pointed out that taking "some cases" to mean "all cases" is a logic failure.
  • Duh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by CRR, posted 06-28-2017 5:18 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 650 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 3:59 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 648 of 1311 (813613)
06-29-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 644 by CRR
06-29-2017 4:23 AM


Re: Kinds
What is a kind and how do we find them?

You left out the critical part specifying "how do we find them".

What science needs is an operational definition. Simply put, given two arbitrarily chosen species A and B, what procedure do we follow to tell if they are the same kind or different?

Referring to information that is both practically and theoretically unavailable may not be part of the definition. E.g. some "original" genetic makeup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by CRR, posted 06-29-2017 4:23 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 666 of 1311 (814085)
07-04-2017 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by CRR
07-04-2017 8:25 AM


Re: definitions
And as for 'kinds', you can't even tell me whether Tapirs and Anteaters are of the elephant 'kind' or not and how the decision would be made. Why is that?

That information was in the linked article. Read it.


I've seen and read that article before.

No operational definition of "kind" there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 8:25 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 10:40 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 673 of 1311 (814234)
07-05-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 671 by CRR
07-04-2017 10:40 PM


Re: definitions
But I have previously given my definition in Message 644

No operational definition of "kind" there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 10:40 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 686 of 1311 (814313)
07-06-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Dredge
07-06-2017 4:56 AM


Re: define "species"
Biologists regularly cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. Antibiotic resistance is nothing more than natural selection.

Nope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Dredge, posted 07-06-2017 4:56 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 697 of 1311 (814341)
07-07-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 692 by CRR
07-07-2017 12:16 AM


Re: Things Louis Bouroune
The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old.

Nope.

quote:
The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by CRR, posted 07-07-2017 12:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 698 of 1311 (814342)
07-07-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by RAZD
07-07-2017 6:33 AM


Re: information vs source
... to the creationist the source, the authority, is more important than the validity of the information, while for the scientific thinking people the validity of the information is more important than the source.

Well put.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2017 6:33 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019