Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 166 of 189 (410381)
07-14-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
07-14-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
I think you should take these issues to a thread where they'd be on-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 3:35 PM Rob has not replied

  
AdminBuzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 189 (410386)
07-14-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
07-14-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Rob, what members Nosy and Percy are trying to convey to you, I see the need to enforce as creationist moderator so as to keep our creationist noses clean here, so to speak. What you need to note in particular is the topic title which is not evidence against evolution perse, but evidence for evolution. Sometimes this topic line can be a bit puzzling, but when in doubt, please hold your peace by refraining from response. So long as your response is directly related to messages pertaining to specific evidence you're ok in assessment of that claimed evidence cited. Otherwise you're off topic.
In a nut shell, either post evidence for or refute claimed such evidence related to the specified evidence to which you are responding in a manner that does not drift from it.
Follow this advice of myself, Nosy and Admin at all times in your activity here and you'll get along fine. Otherwise it's going to be the sameole.
NOTE: If you wish to comment on this admin action, please do so in the proper moderation forum. Thanks.
Edited by Buzsaw, : rephrase for clarity
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.

For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 07-14-2007 3:35 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 4:02 AM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 168 of 189 (410419)
07-15-2007 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
07-14-2007 12:26 PM


Re: Can this thread be saved?
jar writes:
I think you do need to attack Biblical Literalism, but to be successful, that needs to be done from within the Christian communion.
It will not work if the attack comes from someone who does not accept the Bible as a Holy Book, and may not work even if the attacker accepts the Bible as a Holy Book , but that is IMHO the only possible way it might succeed.
Well, I'll be, I was trying to say the same elsewhere before I sratched it.
Some Christians see evolutionists as the devil incarnate. The problem is, the see other denoms in the same way.
You can get two scientists to discuss facts, it happens here all the time. There is a teaching/mentoring thing, and the person in the wrong will usually acknowledge that in the science threads when confronted with a rebuttal.
The problem with Bible study is that there are no facts. Try to argue an interpretation, and you are cast as a 'devil' just as an evolutionionist.
Yet, I agree, that the only way to beat it, is to meet it. Let people know that there is more than one view out there. Let them know that it is Christians who oppose them, as well as the 'enemy'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 07-14-2007 12:26 PM jar has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 169 of 189 (410432)
07-15-2007 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by AdminBuzsaw
07-14-2007 5:36 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
quote:
adminbuzsaw
What you need to note in particular is the topic title which is not evidence against evolution perse, but evidence for evolution. Sometimes this topic line can be a bit puzzling, but when in doubt, please hold your peace by refraining from response. So long as your response is directly related to messages pertaining to specific evidence you're ok in assessment of that claimed evidence cited.
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject?
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by AdminBuzsaw, posted 07-14-2007 5:36 PM AdminBuzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2007 4:54 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 173 by Vacate, posted 07-15-2007 6:09 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2007 10:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 189 (410434)
07-15-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 4:02 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject?
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting.
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in elephants as a category of its own? Does this infringe the thread subject?
I refer to the fact that elephants are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by prehensile noses, a constant which has prevailed over all of time. The categorising of life forms by skeletal and biological imprints, as per Darwin's species, does not acknowledge this pivotal factor - which makes the conclusions based on generic factors, common to all life, as wanting. Its like nominating a million 'red' marbles by their shades of 'red' - while disregarding that one marble is 'blue' - and never seen anywhere else. It is feasable that this factor can be the most legitimate path to the premise of manifest 'differentials' debated within the evolutionary menu: if one factor stands out, and is the most powerful one - all the biological imprints have to cater to that stand out feature, and explain why it is not generic, as per all other generic differentials?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 4:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 5:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 171 of 189 (410437)
07-15-2007 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2007 4:54 AM


Re: Where's the beef?
quote:
VACATE
I refer to the fact that elephants are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by prehensile noses
Tooth size variations - equatable with speech? Well - one more opine will make this Q conclusive for this thread!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2007 4:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2007 6:02 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 189 (410442)
07-15-2007 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 5:37 AM


Anatomy For Complete Beginners
I knew that you were ignorant of biology, but I wouldn't have suspected that even you could confuse teeth and noses.
They're two different things. Spend some time with a mirror and a dictionary, and I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 5:37 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 173 of 189 (410443)
07-15-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 4:02 AM


Where's the human?
What if there is a legitimate qualification preposed, that the species classifications of Darwin does not cater to a pivotal factor in humans as a category of its own?
Humans do have a category of their own! Homo Sapien, does this satisfy you? Take note of the fact that in latin this means wise man, I am sure this will bring you satisfaction in that science even elevates humans (even if just in name).
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech
Not so. You are minimilizing our differences. Not only are we different because of speech, but also our DNA, Bones, Brain, organs, and even trivial things such as our appearance - all these set us apart from all other animals! I can tell you apart from a whale even when you don't speak.
ABE - In message 171 you attributed the quote to me when it was Dr.Adequate that should have been credited.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 4:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 7:47 AM Vacate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 174 of 189 (410458)
07-15-2007 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Vacate
07-15-2007 6:09 AM


Re: Where's the human?
quote:
vacate
but also our DNA, Bones, Brain, organs, and even trivial things such as our appearance - all these set us apart from all other animals!
I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences. But I won't take up this issue here.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Vacate, posted 07-15-2007 6:09 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Vacate, posted 07-15-2007 10:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 175 of 189 (410472)
07-15-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Where's the human?
I disagree - absolutely; variations are not intrinsic or pivotal differences.
This is just absurd. Are you going to wait for the drop of blood to speak before calling it a murder scene?
But I won't take up this issue here.
Yes you will and you already have.
In Message 101:
IamJoseph writes:
Disregard the term, species, at least in the method of categorising life forms, and replace it with the broader margins of 'kind' as per genesis. This allows a far greater grouping of life forms, namely speech endowed humans are seen as one 'kind'
And again here in Message 105
Speech, more than skeletal or dna imprints is what differentiates modern humans.
Again in Message 110
that speech should be highlighted for humans - I'd prefer you acknowledged this, as opposed to inferring this is too naive - it is not.
Another here in Message 145
Genesis identifies this difference with speech - a fulcrum, unique factor
No suprise in Message 152
Its abscence in the equation makes it deficient in illustrating the difference and connectivity between species.
same post, but adding yet another issue:
Simple: none of the birds have speech; birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute.
A few more in that post, but I hardly see the need for quote boxes.
Message 154
Message 169
Message 171
You have done nothing but take up this issue here, and with this final post you still make the claim that the only important difference is speech! Congratulations on making such a unique observation, but could you please make a new thread that outlines how in the world this could be of any use to science?
If you are going to insist that speach is the only important feature I feel that I am justified in some clarity before you have the right to keep declaring "victory" over biologists. All you have right now is a fallback on "kinds" that shifts so broadly, and so often that any attempt at a solid understanding is impossible.
Your method of organizing life is meaningless. You keep claiming science is wrong because it is not organizing correctly - then be clear on your proposal for a correct method. I would be glad to question you on various life forms and how you decide what "kind" they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 7:47 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 176 of 189 (410474)
07-15-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 4:02 AM


Speech
I refer to the fact that humans are distinquished from all other life forms, primarily and exclusively, by speech
Are humans who cannot speak for whatever reason any less human?
Could we not define any particular characteristic of any animal and say that said characteristic makes it unique and special. Surely the only reason we would think speech is so special is because it is our speciality?
Do other animals not communicate verbally? At what point does that become speech? (dolphins, whales, chimps etc. etc.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 4:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 11:00 AM Straggler has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 177 of 189 (410477)
07-15-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Straggler
07-15-2007 10:28 AM


Re: Speech
quote:
Are humans who cannot speak for whatever reason any less human?
If you mean a mute human, this is an exception to the rule, and not catering to the issue.
quote:
Could we not define any particular characteristic of any animal and say that said characteristic makes it unique and special. Surely the only reason we would think speech is so special is because it is our speciality?
Do other animals not communicate verbally? At what point does that become speech? (dolphins, whales, chimps etc. etc.)
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms. Basically, I have accepted this thread's majority view, but not by agreeing in any manner whatsoever: in fact I see the reluctance to a blatant logic as a lacking, but this thread appears not inclined in a variant view of what has been accepted of darwin's classifications by skeletal and biological imprints only, and where speech is not a consideration. We must agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2007 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2007 11:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 180 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2007 12:05 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 178 of 189 (410489)
07-15-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by IamJoseph
07-13-2007 4:55 AM


Re: Try this:
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.
Yes, the issue is not really evolution per se but common descent -- and the agreement of evidence with the numbers of common ancestors as you go back through the evidence. The main problem for the "genesis model" is the disappearance of human then ape then primate then mammal etc etc as you go back in time.
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 145 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2007 4:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 10:45 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 179 of 189 (410490)
07-15-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 11:00 AM


Re: Speech
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech. I don't see dolphins or elephant noses being the right TICK-OFF what sets humans apart from all other life forms.
Communication is what speech accomplishes - this is just a difference of degree and not of kind, and your personal incredulity and denial have nothing to do with it.
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 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 11:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 180 of 189 (410493)
07-15-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
07-15-2007 11:00 AM


Re: Speech
Communication is common to all life forms, and a varied attribute from speech
How exactly?
At what point in infant development does this transition from communication to speech occur (for example)?
I still have issue with you arbitarily deciding that speech is the most important attribute that seperates us from all other living things but until the difference between communication and speech is defined this is fairly meaningless anyway.
Edited by Straggler, : Dopey spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2007 11:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024