Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 2:29 AM
19 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,784 Year: 8,820/19,786 Month: 1,242/2,119 Week: 2/576 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 136 of 189 (409884)
07-11-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by anglagard
07-11-2007 10:16 PM


Re: Getting back on track...
heck, try it with S1WC and his off the cuff excuses he thinks refute your points.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by anglagard, posted 07-11-2007 10:16 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 137 of 189 (409926)
07-12-2007 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by kuresu
07-05-2007 2:20 AM


Where's the beef?
Kuresu:
And evolution itself is a fact--we witness species changing over time.

That is subjection...

Natural selection is a fact that we can witness and test emperically. But organisms adapting to their environment is not equal to evolution.

What we witness factually, is better explained by organisms adapting to a devolving environment, and in the process... losing genetic diversity.

Perhaps you call death and extinction, evolution. I suppose that is debatable. I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.

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.

For more explanation, here is a link to your topic on abiogenesis: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=66#66 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=66#66">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=66#66


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by kuresu, posted 07-05-2007 2:20 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 11:28 AM Rob has responded
 Message 139 by iceage, posted 07-12-2007 11:32 AM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 143 by kuresu, posted 07-12-2007 8:31 PM Rob has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 138 of 189 (409948)
07-12-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rob
07-12-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 10:04 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Rob, posted 07-13-2007 1:14 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 11:02 AM Percy has responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 139 of 189 (409950)
07-12-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rob
07-12-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
Rob writes:

What we witness factually, is better explained by organisms adapting to a devolving environment, and in the process... losing genetic diversity....

I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.

Life is getting increasingly diverse and complex - the tree of life gets busher thru time. And you believe this is due to life "losing genetic diversity" and "increas[ing] in order".

Don't pollute this thread with such unsubstantiated claims, why not start a new thread and provide supporting evidence for such a extraordinary claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 10:04 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 140 of 189 (409963)
07-12-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by IamJoseph
07-11-2007 7:35 AM


Re: Introductory Virology
It means that a harmful virus could also have been accepted by the ape - which makes the apes' survival very doubtful!

Have you ever had a cold or a case of the flu, IaJ? Or a cold sore? If you have, I suppose you have no immune system and that your survival up to today has been "very doubtful."

You make no sense at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by IamJoseph, posted 07-11-2007 7:35 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 5:38 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 141 of 189 (409994)
07-12-2007 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Doddy
05-01-2007 1:25 AM


Try this:
Three observations:

(1) More offspring are produced every year than are needed to replace the existing population.

(2) More genetic variability exists in any species than is needed to change a feature over time if selection were to continually select for such change.

(3) All life is continually changing.

:: Evolution occurs.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Doddy, posted 05-01-2007 1:25 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Doddy, posted 07-12-2007 8:25 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4072 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 142 of 189 (410026)
07-12-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
07-12-2007 4:56 PM


Re: Try this:
Yes RAZD, it is fairly easy to convince a creationist that evolution is happening. They call that microevolution.

But, it is much harder (almost impossible) to convince them that evolution has happened and is the way in which life became what we see today. They would call that macroevolution, and dogmatically deny its occurrence.

To many, it is just logical backwards extrapolation of what we see today. Others, however, may require something else to show them that this extrapolation is valid. Evidence for evolutionary theory.


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2007 4:56 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 4:55 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 675 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 143 of 189 (410027)
07-12-2007 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rob
07-12-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
Rob, we already have one person in this thread spouting nonsense. Please don't add to the noise.

But organisms adapting to their environment is not equal to evolution

Um, what!? Look at the definition of evolution, not the ToE. Evolution is the change in species over time. You have basically said that species changing over time is not equal to species over time.

I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.

Now I see what happened. You've confused the theory for the fact, yet again. That, and you still have no clue what either the fact or theory is. The theory of evolution is intended to explain how and why species change over time.

This is basic stuff Rob, even for you. You've been here long enough to have actually learned what the theory is and what it states and what it's for and to what the fact is.

Perhaps you call death and extinction, evolution

By the way, I don't. I call evolution the change in species over time. Try not to put words in my mouth. I know it may be difficult, but try not to.

I'm not even going to begin going into the whole subject of abiogenesis and evolution being mixed into one by you again.

And one last thing--I thought you were gone for good (for what, the third time now?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 10:04 AM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 5:24 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4011 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 144 of 189 (410057)
07-13-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
07-12-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
Percy:
How should these contradictory statements be resolved? Are you trying to say that evolution is only possible in a devolving environment, whatever that is?

One at a time... I look forward to addressing your questions after settling some other business elsewhere. No contradiction, just a poorly constructed sentance...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 07-12-2007 11:28 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1830 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 145 of 189 (410070)
07-13-2007 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Doddy
07-12-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Try this:
quote:
doddy
Yes RAZD, it is fairly easy to convince a creationist that evolution is happening. They call that microevolution.
But, it is much harder (almost impossible) to convince them that evolution has happened and is the way in which life became what we see today. They would call that macroevolution, and dogmatically deny its occurrence.

Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin. Mircoevolution is not the issue - the conclusion made of it, is the issue, and this debate is inclined with genesis being correct.

quote:

To many, it is just logical backwards extrapolation of what we see today. Others, however, may require something else to show them that this extrapolation is valid. Evidence for evolutionary theory.

An extension seen from skeletal and other biological features, common to all life, does not prove any culmination with humans - which are differently attributed than all other life forms by their un-commonalities - not addressed by Darwin, but well addressed by Genesis: Genesis identifies this difference with speech - a fulcrum, unique factor, and that all transmissions are seed generated - not even mentioned in Darwin's Theory, but which transcend the premise of Darwin, rendering them superfluous.

Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Doddy, posted 07-12-2007 8:25 PM Doddy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Vacate, posted 07-13-2007 6:12 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 178 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2007 11:33 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1830 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 189 (410072)
07-13-2007 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by kuresu
07-12-2007 8:31 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
quote:
kuresu

Evolution is the change in species over time. You have basically said that species changing over time is not equal to species over time.


Not so. Time has had no impact on speech being seen elsewhere, which is the highest attribute of adaptation. Nor does the past millions of years of evolution indicate this will occur in the distant future. Here, Genesis is fully vindicated.

quote:

I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.


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.

quote:

The theory of evolution is intended to explain how and why species change over time.

But there is a difference between environmental impacts and speciation. Skin color and features are environmental impacts, resultant from 1000s of years of changes. There has been sufficient time passed with no evidence of any life form, anywhere, has changed over time to indicate speciation to human mode. Why are the oldest known life forms not the predominant one, if an accumulated elevation is time based?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by kuresu, posted 07-12-2007 8:31 PM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 6:11 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1830 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 147 of 189 (410073)
07-13-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Coragyps
07-12-2007 12:44 PM


Re: Introductory Virology
quote:
cora

Have you ever had a cold or a case of the flu, IaJ? Or a cold sore? If you have, I suppose you have no immune system and that your survival up to today has been "very doubtful."

You make no sense at all.


Having an immune system is not the issue - this is a positive attribute, and it operates involuntarilly. The issue is that a life form would accept destruction of itself, as a positive attribute, and equated with fighting a flu virus, makes far less sense. The imprints of life are not the same for the particular adaptation of species. Fighting flu is not the same as acceptance of my destruction for another species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 07-12-2007 12:44 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 148 of 189 (410075)
07-13-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by IamJoseph
07-13-2007 5:24 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
IamJoseph writes:

quote:
I think it is clear to all that the concept of evolution was and is intended to explain the increase in order.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 5:24 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 6:20 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2763 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 149 of 189 (410076)
07-13-2007 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by IamJoseph
07-13-2007 4:55 AM


Re: Try this:
IamJoseph writes:

Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin.

Irrelevant. When you feel that evolution was introduced is not the topic of discussion.

Genesis identifies this difference with speech

Are you aware that humans are not the only species that has unique traits? - and no this is not irrelevant. You have concluded that humans are a unique species/kind/thing/type/example/form simply because they have a feature that other species/kinds/things/types/examples/forms do not.

Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna.

How exactly does "Darwin" fail in this regard? How does your definition of bird-kind in any way help me to differentiate a Robin from an Ostrich or a Hummingbird?

So far your method of organizing life forms is without any substantiation. Its meaningless to state that humans are different because of speech, that much is obvious. What is not obvious what criteria you use to determine fish-kind, insect-kind, bacteria-kind, mamal-kind-excluding human-kind.

Show me that you can pass the test of ticking the difference. All I have read so far is about "vindicated Genesis", and not one solitary reason for you to declare all evidence to the contrary "irrelevant".

and that all transmissions are seed generated - not even mentioned in Darwin's Theory

I am still waiting for you to explain why Darwin should use something that does not make sense. Unless of course you actually believe that evolutionary scientists do not know how various life forms have sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 4:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 6:38 AM Vacate has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1830 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 150 of 189 (410077)
07-13-2007 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
07-13-2007 6:11 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
quote:

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


Context. The quote by itself does not define the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 07-13-2007 6:11 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019