Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Happy Birthday: glowby
Post Volume: Total: 884,808 Year: 2,454/14,102 Month: 119/703 Week: 98/272 Day: 33/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 33 of 294 (844727)
12-04-2018 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Porkncheese
12-03-2018 10:08 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Boy you really hate atheists.

It must be nice to have a single group of people that you can blame for all the things you fear.

Porky writes:

Lets kill babies, yay. Lets allow adultery and open divorce, yay. Lets allow gay matrriage, yay. Lets allow gays to expose kids to sexual material, info, etc, yay. Lets allow gays to adopt kids, yay. Lets allow kids of 8yo to choose to be gay, yay. Lets allow 8yo kids to choose to be trannies, yay. Lets encourage kids to be gay, yay. Lets give our kids puberty blockers and fund surgeries to help be trannies, yay. Lets send any man to prison on the allegation of a woman, yay. Lets make it impossible for single men to approach women, yay. Lets make it possible for women to call rape if a man doesn't do what she pleases, yay. Let's destroy relations and rewrite the rules of engagement, yay. Lets encourage promisuity in women, yay. Lets assume all men are potential killers and rapists, yay. Lets make mens lives hang on the selfishness of young atheist women that have no morals.

I think it is interesting that you are so self absorbed that you think your feelings matter more than other people's feelings.

I don't know where you live but in America we decided that if you are a citizen living in this country paying taxes, you deserve the same benefits as everyone else.

It has taken a long time to get things right and we still make lots of mistakes but we are getting there.

Judging from your rant, you seem to think that you should have all the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, but other people who do not agree with everything you believe should not have the same rights. In fact, YOU think their rights some how take away your rights.

Porky writes:

They’ve produced a bunch of frauds which for me is also a deal breaker. What does a judge do when he learns the defendant has been dishonest? Fool me once shame on u fool me twice shame on me. The whole ToE is founded on frauds.

In Message 22 you said:

quote:
Your beliefs are founded on frauds like piltdown man, fake horse and moth evolution, hoax embryos.

Well, only piltdown was a hoax and it was shown to be a hoax by scientists. The ToE was never founded or based on hoaxes and science has by its very nature tried to expose frauds.

Porky writes:

"Knowledge comes from knowing u don't know everything"

I would say in your case you don't know anything about science, evolution, atheists, human rights, or communication.

For a college student you are a really, really, really crappy writer and communicator.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Porkncheese, posted 12-03-2018 10:08 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 34 of 294 (844731)
12-04-2018 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
12-04-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Aaarrrrrrrrrruuuugggghhhh
Phat writes:

pork n cheese writes:

Explain to me how the fuck im meant to get layed under this atheist society?

Conclusion: You are ranting because you are emotionally/sexually frustrated and attempting to find yourself.

I think he's demonstrated exactly why he can't get laid. Atheist girls don't like haters any more than anyone else does.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 12-04-2018 2:27 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 37 of 294 (844740)
12-04-2018 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Porkncheese
12-04-2018 6:18 PM


Re: Atheism
Porky writes:

Atheism. The mindless destruction of western civilization

Ignorance. The mindless destruction of humanity.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Porkncheese, posted 12-04-2018 6:18 PM Porkncheese has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 58 of 294 (844794)
12-05-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Diomedes
12-05-2018 11:58 AM


Re: Hehehehe u guys are such jokers
Computer science is another example: would that really be a science per se? I guess it really comes down to definitions.

Political science is the one that makes me roll my eyes.

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Political science is a social science which deals with systems of governance, and the analysis of political activities, political thoughts, and political behavior.[1] It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is commonly thought of as determining of the distribution of power and resources. Political scientists "see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions, and from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics works."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Diomedes, posted 12-05-2018 11:58 AM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Diomedes, posted 12-05-2018 2:55 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 12-06-2018 3:25 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(2)
Message 75 of 294 (845146)
12-12-2018 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Pressie
12-10-2018 6:02 AM


The basic and honest replies to the statements he/she made were just too hard for him/her to be able to comprehend.

It has to be a he. I have never heard a woman blame the atheists for not getting laid. He is definitely a guy who had his balls handed to him by female atheist evolutionist.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 12-10-2018 6:02 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Pressie, posted 12-13-2018 6:03 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(2)
Message 77 of 294 (845181)
12-12-2018 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by RAZD
12-12-2018 10:03 PM


RAZD writes:

Pressie writes:

I think that Porkncheese abandoned us. ...


He's done that before.

Yep. When we see these repeated patterns it always makes me wonder what he expects to happen? His support for his rants is not even lackluster, he's not even trying. It's just an old-fashoned Gish Gallop of PRATTS.

I think he is a troubled young man. I hope he finds his way without anyone being hurt.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2018 10:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 83 of 294 (847279)
01-20-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by WookieeB
01-20-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But how do they demonstrate the method of change?

There is only one process. Evolution is change from generation to generation. Macroevolution is just the result of many generations of change that lead to one or more daughter species.

Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same process.

That image doesn't demonstrate anything without more explanation, except that there are some clear similarities. The images do not demonstrate what the exact hereditary relationships are between the species that are illustrated.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by WookieeB, posted 01-20-2019 1:09 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 88 of 294 (847376)
01-21-2019 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

The problem is that definition is NOT usually how evolution is meant.

NOT usually how evolution is meant, by whom? So, how is evolution usually meant?

WookieeB writes:

But it DOESN'T speak to a hereditary relationship, it is silent on that.

Yes, that's what I just said.

WookieeB writes:

dwise1 writes:

Demonstrating that something happens and explaining how it happens are two different things. The sequence of skulls from chimp (A) to human (L) demonstrates macroevolution having happened, as advertised, but doesn't explain how macroevolution happens.

I agree with the first statement. But the second statement is not necessarily true. For one thing, the 'chimp' skull should not even be in that sequence, as I understand that with Common Descent it should be some older common ancestor of the chimp and human (Homo x) that led to humans. A chimp would be on a totally separate branch and would not lead to humans.

I did not write that.

WookieeB writes:

AZPaul3 writes:

They don't. What made you think they did?


I don't. But apparently some commenters do, as is evidenced by some of the initial responses to my question.

I didn't write this one either.

WookieeB writes:

Again, a relationship is clearly evident. The cause of that relationship is not. As for a cause, ID is just as valid a proposal as M+NS is.

No it is not.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 90 of 294 (847379)
01-21-2019 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 8:41 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

No it is not.


And why not?

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 8:41 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 99 of 294 (847417)
01-22-2019 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 12:42 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

There is no published research and no evidence for ID, whereas there has been 150+ years of research and evidence compiled for the processes of evolution. There is so much research and evidence that it fills libraries.

First, your response is irrelevant to the question at hand. The issue is what the supposed progression of skulls tells us as to the process for how they got that way. And the answer is "Nothing". Any plausible process could be the reason, whether that is mutation+natural selection, some other natural process, or ID (despite how you may feel about it).

Actually, my response was a direct answer to your question in Message 89.

My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships.

Secondly, as to published research and evidence for ID, you appear to be quite unaware. There is quite a lot of research a out there (including peer-reviewed papers), as well as a number of books, websites, talks, etc. One was linked in the first post of this thread. More recently, there was a major mathematical paper released

Oh, I am aware that ID proponents publish crap in their vanity journal that could never make it through peer review in an actual scientific journal.

ID is nothing but creationism dressed up in sciencey sounding words. Pretend science.

Thirdly, you now seem to be using a more restricted definition of "evolution". I guess it is more than just "Evolution is change from generation to generation".

I don't know what I said that you are basing that on. "Evolution is change from generation to generation" is the most basic, simplest definition. The processes of evolution that have been discovered and studied over the past 150+ years are very complex and fill libraries.

Generally, evolution will have one of the following definitions. Of course, this list is not exhaustive and context does matter:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature.
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms
have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited
descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random
variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended
from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

I wouldn't use 1.
2 would be need more explanation.
I wouldn't use 3 or 4 or 5.
6 is is nothing but a bullshit creationist description.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 12:42 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:28 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 113 of 294 (847444)
01-22-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:28 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
You seem to have a reading comprehension issue.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

My understanding is that the skulls in the image are arranged in chronological order but that there is no further data, in the image, as far as evolutionary ancestors and descendants relationships.


Even if we accept that the pictures are in chronological order, you cannot make any inference that there is any ancestor/descendant relationship. You can infer a relationship based on homology, but you cannot state that is is due to any parent/child link. It might be parent/child, or it might be a distant cousin linkage, or it might be an experiment by aliens, or it might be some other form of ID. My point is you are assuming some evolutionary linkage, but you do not have enough data to do so.

I clearly stated that there is no data in the image about any ancestor/descendant relationship. My point is that I have made no statement or assumption about any ancestor/descendant relationship.

Besides and again, the Axe paper from the first post wasn't in an "ID" vanity journal.

And it does not relate in any way to the process by which proteins actually evolve or how biology actually works.

If it had succeeded in showing that proteins cannot evolve that still would not have been support for ID.

I do think it's interesting that the few ID articles that I've read are short on convincing evidence and seem to be "preaching to the choir" rather than competing with mainstream science publishing. They don't seem to be able to cut the mustard when it come to critical scientific review. It always comes down to "you have to believe in magic."

WookieeB writes:

Funny. That's the first time I've heard of Richard Dawkins being described as a "creationist". You must know that it is basically the description from his book.

Funny, because that's not what I said. That looks like a paraphrased quotemine to me. Kind of an unquoted quotemine.

I haven't read Dawkins' books, but I suspect that he didn't say exactly, "the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms."

If he did, it does not make any difference to me, because it is not the wording I use to define evolution. I find "solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.....and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms"
are not necessary wording in any scientific theory.

I prefer RAZD's definition of evolution Message 332 in Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

quote:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:28 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 7:18 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 114 of 294 (847446)
01-22-2019 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 2:07 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

puts another nail in the coffin for the 'Junk DNA' view that is common to Darwinian evolution.

That's pretty funny, since junk DNA wasn't discovered until more than 100 years after Darwin published Origin of Species.

There are no discoveries about DNA that are excluded from the modern Theory of Evolution. That is the point of a scientific theory, it includes ALL the discovered evidence in that field.

You trying to paint the Theory of Evolution as out of touch the current state of knowledge is just plain silly.

WookieeB writes:

Then I guess you do not understand at all what Axe's paper is about. His paper provided a challenge to how Darwinian evolution is supposed to act.

Too bad, but it doesn't provide a challenge for how proteins actually evolve and how biological evolution actually works. Darwinian evolution was about natural selection and had nothing to say about proteins or molecular biology.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 2:07 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 148 of 294 (847577)
01-23-2019 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by WookieeB
01-22-2019 7:18 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
But basically I was indicating that you have no reason to say there is ANY 'ancestors and descendants' involved.

Well excuse me for using words you don't like. I was simply trying to be clear that no ancestor and descendant relationships were implied, because some people jump to that conclusion.

Assuming you are correct, then what is the process by which proteins actually evolve that Axe's work has absolutely no bearing on whatsoever?

First, proteins evolve when there are mutations in the genes that produce them. So new proteins evolve from already existing ones. Each new protein does not have to go through a long involved process of starting from scratch.

Second, calculating the probability of something occurring, for example 1x10^77, does not mean that 1x10^77 attempts have to occur before you have a functional protein. The functional protein could be formed after 1 try, or 50, or 1000.

Evolution almost totally occurs by modifying existing features.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

I do think it's interesting that the few ID articles that I've read are short on convincing evidence and seem to be "preaching to the choir" rather than competing with mainstream science publishing. They don't seem to be able to cut the mustard when it come to critical scientific review. It always comes down to "you have to believe in magic."


Rather than more 'I say:you say' banter, can you provide an example?

An example of preaching to the choir is the fact that all their papers are only published in the journal that only they read. If you mean an example of "you have to believe in magic", then the magic designer for which there is not a shred of evidence.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Funny, because that's not what I said. That looks like a paraphrased quotemine to me. Kind of an unquoted quotemine.

I haven't read Dawkins' books, but I suspect that he didn't say exactly...

Nobody claimed it was a quote. It's just a short description of what the idea of evolution is in Dawkin's book, which is a pretty common meaning for evolution in discussions like these. If you haven't read it, then I guess you wouldn't know either way.

So I was correct, Dawkins didn't say that and you added the weasel words yourself.

You certainly implied it was a quote when you accused me of calling Dawkins a creationist based on my reaction to that fake quote.

I have looked up some of his quotes.

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

No mention of mutations or natural selection here, unless that is what you would include in "an iterative feedback response". This needs to be fleshed out in more detail, as it doesn't provide any information as to what you meant earlier by mentioning "the process by which proteins actually evolve or how biology actually works".

"Changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are mutations.

"an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats" is natural selection.

But within this description, do you allow for the process to be directed, purposeful, and/or via an intelligence? The definition is rather agnostic there.

Of course not. There is no evidence of direction, purpose or a designing intelligence involved in biological processes. Until there is evidence why would we include it? We also do not all the other things there is no evidence for.

I've been neglecting work while procrastinating here, so need to get my ass in gear and get caught up.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by WookieeB, posted 01-22-2019 7:18 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 1:47 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 155 of 294 (847638)
01-24-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 1:47 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
This is all I have time for today

WookieeB writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

"Changes in the composition of hereditary traits" are mutations.
"an iterative feedback response..." is natural selection.
...
Of course not. There is no evidence of direction, purpose or a designing intelligence involved in biological processes.

LOL, this is rich. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
How is what you just said any different from?...

wookieeb writes:

Evolution is...the idea that all organisms have descended
from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent,
purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection,
random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic
mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of
design in living organisms.

I answered your question about whether direction, purpose or a designing intelligence should be part of a definition of evolution. You brought it up and I said it does not have any evidence, so it should not be included. Magic and magical entities are completely useless to scientists studying biology.

The only people who want to include those weasel words (including unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes) in definitions of evolution are creationists and cdesign proponentsists.

I also do not include all the other things that have nothing to do with evolution; yellow paint, breakfast cereal, leprechauns...


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 1:47 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:43 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2459
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(2)
Message 162 of 294 (847664)
01-24-2019 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by WookieeB
01-24-2019 6:43 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
WookieeB writes:

OMG, you are so dense!

OMG, you are so rude!

Do you think questions on origins, even evolutionary ones, never has anyone questioning whether the process is unguided?

Nope, in 150+ years that people have been studying life and evolution no evidence of a guiding entity has been found. If someone finds evidence they need to report it so it can be evaluated, but those of us who study evolution and biology are all more interested in pursuing our own specialties and evaluating the reported observations and findings of other scientists.

Those questions were unanswerable without evidence so we left it to those who want to spend their time trying to find that evidence. It hasn't happened yet and we don't see any reason to list the things we have not found in our definitions of this field of study.

It has a bearing on the qualification of the definition of evolution because those are topics that are frequently involved when discussing evolution in the manner that we are....How can you even be interacting on a forum like this without realizing that?

Oh, I realize that's what you want, I'm waiting for evidence of guided, intelligent, purposeful, immaterial processes, in other words magic.

Ever hear of theistic evolution? Such questions such as whether evolution is by an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless process is central to the subject.

Yep, I've heard of it, but once again you have no evidence of an intelligent guide.

The central theme is Evolution vs Creation, and we're in the sub-topic of Intelligent Design. Discussions of scientific things is just some structure for the greater theme. How you can not think that the nature of evolution (being guided or unguided, etc) would not factor into the discussion going on here is boggling to me.

Yeah, I get that. Present your evidence for your intelligent designer.

It's context. CONTEXT!!! Get it?

It's still about evidence. EVIDENCE!!! Get it?

You seem to think this is the first time we have heard your stuff, but we've heard it all before and there never is any evidence to support you.

Meanwhile we have millions of fossils, biogeography, molecular biology, millions of studies in the lab and in the field that all consistently support the modern theory of biological evolution.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by WookieeB, posted 01-24-2019 6:43 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Theodoric, posted 01-24-2019 11:10 PM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 169 by WookieeB, posted 01-25-2019 11:57 AM Tanypteryx 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