Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:13 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,001 Year: 12,037/19,786 Month: 1,818/2,641 Week: 327/708 Day: 21/81 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   How can Biologists believe in the ToE?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2290 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 61 of 304 (400109)
05-10-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
05-10-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Re-Kind
I think it was pretty clear that what was meant was a scientific definition for 'Kind' as a scientific term. Your definition is not that and your examples go to show how scientifically vacuous the concept of 'Kind' is as a scientific term. When you have a classification system which describes the highly monomorphic human species as a single distinct group but lumps the tens of thousands of highly divergent species of fish together in one grouping then your classification system is worthless.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 12:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:28 PM Wounded King has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 62 of 304 (400110)
05-10-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
05-10-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Re-Kind
So, is a donkey the same 'kind' as a horse?

Is a lynx the same 'kind' as a lion?

Is a tiger the same kind as a lion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 12:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 63 of 304 (400111)
05-10-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
05-10-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Re-Kind
birds are a kind, fish are a kind,....

Suggesting that hummingbirds and ostriches can interbreed? That whale sharks, hagfish, candiru, and sardines share a common, recent ancestor?

You might want to put a little more thought into that, ICANT. You are currently operating on a system like that my two-year-old grandson uses: "Fishy!" "Horsy!"

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 12:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:42 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 64 of 304 (400112)
05-10-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
05-03-2007 11:37 AM


Re: The ToE
msg1 writes:

In another thread, ICANT wrote the following:

quote:
I do not see how anyone can believe in the Theory of of evolution.

Modulous writes:

Nobody believes in the ToE

Thanks Modulous, I believe this and the following statement you made.

Modulous writes:

scientists believe that it is the most complete and consistent scientific theoryto explain how populations change over generations.

My bold and underline.

I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.
I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads.

Modulous writes:

As I said earlier, that populations change is not under dispute from most creationists. That the mechanisms can account for most of that change is not usually in dispute from creationists (though it is by IDists - it's their sole argument in fact), the only real issue is how much change has occurred?

As I understand it there has been much change that has taken place within kinds. This is a proven fact.

It is not a proven fact that one kind became another kind.
It is not a proven fact where the universe came from.
It is not a proven fact where life came from.

Therefore I conclude my theory is the correct theory.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 05-03-2007 11:37 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2007 1:59 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 72 by nator, posted 05-10-2007 9:50 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 65 of 304 (400114)
05-10-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Wounded King
05-10-2007 1:14 PM


Re: Re-Kind
I think it was pretty clear that what was meant was a scientific definition for 'Kind'

nator demanded a definition from me of kind, and then proceeded to tell me I was not qualified to give a definition.

Therefore I had to look up and find one, which I did.

I can't help it if you don't agree with it.

Why would science have a definition for kind?


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 05-10-2007 1:14 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 05-11-2007 2:25 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 66 of 304 (400116)
05-10-2007 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Coragyps
05-10-2007 1:16 PM


Re: Re-Kind
You are currently operating on a system like that my two-year-old grandson uses: "Fishy!" "Horsy!"

Sounds like your grandson is a very smart child.

Suggesting that hummingbirds and ostriches can interbreed?

Are you proposing that Great Dane's and Chihuahua's are not the same kind because they cannot interbreed.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Coragyps, posted 05-10-2007 1:16 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2007 6:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 67 of 304 (400119)
05-10-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
05-10-2007 1:20 PM


Re: The ToE
I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.

No, it is not the only theory. Lamarckism is another theory for example. However ToE is the most complete and consistent scientific theory to explain how populations change over generations.

I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads.

That is not a scientific theory though. That's a theological theory.

As I understand it there has been much change that has taken place within kinds. This is a proven fact.

Well - actually it isn't proven - we don't have a testable definition of a kind. So we can't test the hypothesis. So it isn't close to having been proven.

It is not a proven fact that one kind became another kind.

Agreed. As I said 'the only real issue is how much change has occurred'


It is not a proven fact where the universe came from.

Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change.

It is not a proven fact where life came from.

Which is nothing to do with a biological theory of population change, unless we define populations in such a way to include entities which are not living.

So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE, you just disagree with both the consenus view of natural history and that the ToE can account for the changes proposed by the consensus view of natural hisory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:20 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 5:52 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 70 by curious, posted 05-10-2007 9:18 PM Modulous has responded

ICANT
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 68 of 304 (400147)
05-10-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Modulous
05-10-2007 1:59 PM


Re: The ToE
So, basically you agree with me that you accept the ToE,

No I do not believe in the theory of evolution.

Being brought up on a farm I believe in evolution. Example: I believe you can take some piney woods rooters (wild hogs) and using selective breeding and cross breeding and come up with some amazing hogs. You start out with small hogs around 150 lbs and can wind up with hogs that weight 600 to 900 lbs.(Largest known was a Poland-China hog named Big Bill, who weighed 2,552 lbs.)

I believe that many changes have occured in animals, plants, fish, fowl, and humans. But these things happened it is not a theory.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2007 1:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2007 10:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2007 3:13 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2007 9:01 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 69 of 304 (400148)
05-10-2007 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
05-10-2007 1:42 PM


ongoing search for the biological definition of 'kind'
So those scientists should just drop their high-falutin' talk about clads and get back to Fishy and Horsey, eh?

I'm curious as to how you and the two-year-olds of the world have decided to classify this one.



Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by fallacycop, posted 05-10-2007 11:05 PM Archer Opteryx has responded
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2007 10:49 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

curious
Junior Member (Idle past 4362 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 70 of 304 (400166)
05-10-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Modulous
05-10-2007 1:59 PM


Re: The ToE
Why shouldn't creation be scientific?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2007 1:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2007 3:28 AM curious has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 304 (400168)
05-10-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by riVeRraT
05-04-2007 2:58 PM


Re: Re-ToE
Clearly, if you don't know enough about ToE to believe in it, you can't possible believe in something as out there as gravity.

quote:
My point is, that I wouldn't compare the two.

Why not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 05-04-2007 2:58 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 365 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 72 of 304 (400170)
05-10-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
05-10-2007 1:20 PM


Re: The ToE
quote:
I believe that it is a theory but not the only theory.

I believe in the theory that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, as I have stated in other threads.


So, what predictions of your theory, if found, would falsify it?

Does it explain ALL the evidence found in nature better than any other theory?

These are a couple of hallmarks of a scientific theory.

The layman's use of the word "theory" is not at all like the way scientists use the word.

Some scientific theories you might recognize:

The Germ Theory of Disease
The Atomic Theory of Matter
The Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System
Gravitational Theory
The Theory of Relativity
Evolutionary Theory


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 1:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 304 (400177)
05-10-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
05-10-2007 5:52 PM


Re: The ToE
No I do not believe in the theory of evolution.

And yet curiously enough your post reveals that you don't know what it is. Perhaps you should have found this out before rejecting it.

The theory of evolution is the explanation for the fact of evolution: this explanation consisting of the law of natural selection and the laws and facts of genetics.

I believe that many changes have occured in animals, plants, fish, fowl, and humans. But these things happened it is not a theory.

Quite so, for example birds evolved from dinosaurs. This happened, it is not a theory.

Theories, on the other hand, don't "happen", they explain and predict. The theory of gravity doesn't "happen", it's a well-tested set of laws and facts explaining the events which happen.

Do try to get the basic vocabulary straight.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 5:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3716 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 74 of 304 (400178)
05-10-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Archer Opteryx
05-10-2007 6:17 PM


cool picture.

is that some kind of tapir?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-10-2007 6:17 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-11-2007 5:04 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3716 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 75 of 304 (400180)
05-10-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
05-10-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Re-Kind
I take that to mean that humans are a kind, dogs are a kind, cats are a kind, rats are a kind, birds are a kind, fish are a kind, monkeys are a kind, baboons are a kind, apes are a kind horses are a kind, cows are a kind, hogs are a kind, snakes are a kind, etc.

Your uncanny ability to make a fool of yourself never ceases to amaze me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 12:48 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2007 11:35 PM fallacycop has responded

Prev1234
5
67
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019