|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5910 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi IamJoseph,
If you can offer criticisms that are actually about evolution instead of about evolutionists, we will attempt to respond. This is a good question:
IamJoseph writes: Q 1: Is Evolution a verified 'constant' - and is this a universal constant, or a localised one which effects only one planet? As has already been noted by someone else in an earlier message, evolution isn't a "constant" in the way we normally use the term, like pi or e or Planck's constant or Avogadro's number. But the principles of evolution could be said to be constant in that they should be the same everywhere throughout the universe. That's because the processes of evolution obey physical laws, and physical laws are the same everywhere throughout the universe. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi IamJoseph,
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this message. Is English a 2nd language for you? If so, then I'll go back and read it a few more times and see if I can get it, but otherwise could you rephrase what you said a bit more clearly? I didn't understand what you were saying was contradictory in the 1st paragraph. A term I didn't understand in the 2nd paragraph were "host seed." But for the most part it was just an overall inability to tell what you were specifically objecting to. Whatever it is you're taking issue with, I can only reiterate that the principles of evolution apply everywhere throughout the universe because known physical laws apply everywhere throughout the universe, and at the lowest levels evolution is just matter and energy following known physical laws. Descent with modification combined with natural selection is a very powerful process for adaptation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rob writes: What we witness factually, is better explained by organisms adapting to a devolving environment, and in the process... losing genetic diversity. So you're saying that we *have* made empirical observations of evolution, albeit in a devolving environment.
And what is particularly telling, is the problem of origin, in that, evolution (as an assumed universal trait; cosmologically or biologically) does not show itself in any form that is emperical. And now you're saying that we've never made empirical observations of evolution, including biologically. How should these contradictory statements be resolved? Are you trying to say that evolution is only possible in a devolving environment, whatever that is? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
IamJoseph writes: quote: The species appear to be graduating within their species only, despite imprints of commonality of all life forms, including with vegetation. This means, animals will change/adapt as animals - unless it is assumed these changes will include speech. A contrived or real link between a pineapple and a zebra does not conclude these derived from those extensions, but that they pursue their own despite these imprints. Why are you quoting something you said, and that Kuresu only quoted, as if Kuresu had said it himself, and then replying to it? You're talking to yourself. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It's sometimes a little hard to tell what some participants are saying, and so naturally that means one can't always be sure whether they're on-topic or not, but I think it's apparent by now that this thread is off-topic (I helped, I know).
I think that before posting additional messages that participants should reread Message 1. In my opinion, there is no "most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory." Most creationists have a religious rather than scientific background, so the significance of the scientific evidence is often unapparent to them. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi IamJoseph,
Replying to your message would only draw this thread further off-topic. This isn't a thread for creationists to describe what they see as the flaws in evolutionary theory. There are plenty of threads for that, or you could propose a new one if you like. This is a thread for evolutionists to propose what they think is the most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory. The role of creationists in this thread would be to critique these proposals. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Rob,
Well, I can't see how anything you say in this message echos anything in your earlier message, but if all you were trying to say is that there is little empirical evidence telling us how abiogenesis occurred, I would agree. But this thread isn't about abiogenesis. From your side of fence and returning to the actual topic, what do you see as the most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I think you should take these issues to a thread where they'd be on-topic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
IamJoseph raised the issue of how speech developed in man as an example of a critical weakness of evolutionary theory, not as an example of convincing evidence. I think those who want to discuss the evolution of speech should go to another thread. This thread is for proposing and dissecting examples of compelling evidence for evolutionary theory.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This thread might represent an opportunity for moderators to discourage members from swathing the topic in layers of illogic. Better a thread sit idle than descend into nonsense.
Participants in this thread who would really like to discuss some other topic are hopefully aware that any member may propose a new topic over at [forum=-25]. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
This is off-topic, and I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, but I would like to briefly note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind:
AIG writes: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. This would change their "You only get dogs from dogs," argument to "You only get life from life." And who could argue with that! --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024