Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:26 AM
26 online now:
Meddle (1 member, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is evolution?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 122 (456237)
02-16-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hill Billy
02-16-2008 12:40 PM


Re: Whats the difference between a duck?
Ok, I'll try, isn't evolution the theory that says living things change , through reproduction, over time? That one type of critter, after generations of reproduction may become a different type of critter? That certain types of critters will be unable to reproduce and their "coding" will be lost to the pool, while others will increase in numbers due to "favorable conditions" ? That the make up of a critter will change with reproduction?

I believe that's a simplistic version of the theory.

It is simplistic, but at least you're vaguely in the right ball-park, or at least within sight of the ticket office.

You could increase your accuracy by looking at a biology textbook sometime.

Some of the things being preached are that this theory proves conclusively that every living thing originated with one single living thing which originated with no living thing and that relatively simple things can become extremely complex things just by reproducing. It is also being preached that all this living originated with nothing living and to ask how is a nonsense question.

No, that's just some rubbish that you've made up in your head.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 12:40 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 9 of 122 (456238)
02-16-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
02-16-2008 1:52 PM


Re: I Know
My definition:

The Theory of Evolution is a change over time where all living things came from a pea sized universe that expanded into what we see and what we do not see today. The Big Band Theory tries to explain what happened in the material universe from T=O+ until present. The Theory of Abiogenesis tries to explain how life came into being on a lifeless planet. Once this life appeared the Theory of Biogenesis tries to explain how all living lifeforms extinct and living today came from this first or many life cells.

The thing is, that in the English language, the phrase "theory of evolution" has a meaning. And that is not it.

You might as well say that your defintion of "pineapple" is "small tree-dwelling marsupial". You are free, of course, to follow your private whims in this respect, but if you then go around telling people that pineapples carry their young in pouches, they will think that you are ignorant or stupid or crazy or a liar.

And if you know perfectly well that in English, the word "pineapple" does not indicate a marsupial, then the last of these options will be the case. You would be a liar telling a stupid lie.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 1:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 15 of 122 (456256)
02-16-2008 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ICANT
02-16-2008 3:22 PM


Re: I Know
Remember subbie asked for my definition of the ToE.
He did not ask for the definition of evolution.

Which is why I criticized your inaccurate definition of "theory of evolution".

Glad to see you still in rare form preaching your garbage.
I told subbie he wouldn't like my definition and I didn't think any other evolutionist would either.

It would make any honest man disgusted.

AS I said you guys can't even agree among yourselves.

What a strange lie.

By the way, when are you guys going to agree on whether the universe is 6,000 years old or 13,000,000,000 years old?

You care to enlighten us with your version?

I plan to explain it more carefully to Hill Billy. I am not inclinded to do so for your benefit, because I suspect that you do know roughtly what the phrase "theory of evolution" means, and are just getting it wrong because you know that silly mistakes on this subject annoy the educated.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 3:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2008 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 16 of 122 (456258)
02-16-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hill Billy
02-16-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Whats the difference between a duck?
Um, no, thats rubbish someone else made up in their head ...

Yes, to be fair, some other creationist probably invented that stuff for you.

... and I am repeating in order to answer a question.

Could you direct us to the actual source where you got this stuff with some sort of a link?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hill Billy, posted 02-16-2008 2:45 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

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


Message 61 of 122 (466216)
05-13-2008 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 10:08 AM


Re: What is a fact?
Consider that the only "facts" that do not involve some measure of interpretation are statements about one's own qualia.

If we wish to give factual status even to statements such as: "There is a tiger", then we must acknowledge that these are "facts" only in the light of well-tested theories which, because they have so far reliably predicted the observations, must faut de mieux be used to interpret them.

Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution as it is being used to explain all of these unobservable past events is not even science?

No. Scientists would have noticed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 10:08 AM Wumpini has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 05-13-2008 6:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 71 of 122 (466655)
05-16-2008 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 12:11 AM


Re: Official statements from authorities of evolution theory
You mean something like this?

A report produced by the National Science Foundation and endorsed by the following scientific societies:

* The American Institute of Biological Sciences
* The American Society of Naturalists
* The Animal Behavior Society
* The Ecological Society of America
* The Genetics Society of America
* The Paleontological Society
* The Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
* The Society of Systematic Biologists
* The Society for the Study of Evolution

Will that do? Only I can't see what more you want except that there should be some sort of Science Pope.

Personally, I don't like the Catholic hierarchy, I feel much more attracted to Buddhism. It's such a great religion, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 12:11 AM Yrreg has not yet responded

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


Message 75 of 122 (466710)
05-16-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Yrreg
05-16-2008 6:39 AM


Thanks, doc, for your list of scientific associations.
Please read my post again, all I am asking is for a singular concrete event which both pros and cons of the evolution theory can accept as a fact of evolution.

My post was of course a reply to post #68. This why it answers the question in post #68 rather than the one in post #70, and why it has "this message is a reply to message 68" at the bottom.

---

If you want a scientific fact about evolution that creationists will universally admit to be true, then want must be your master.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Yrreg, posted 05-16-2008 6:39 AM Yrreg has not yet responded

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


Message 76 of 122 (466711)
05-16-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
05-16-2008 8:55 AM


ToE says [as opposed what it does not say], briefly in headings:

1. A process of change.
2. Changes of life forms.
3. The life forms are deivided in groups [speceis], according to common, base traits.
4. The changes are said to occur via speciation [branching in groups]; survival of the fittest [many don't make it, same with the drama of sperm cells, allowing only one fit to succeed]; and Adaptation [learning or acquiring means to prevail environmental conditions].
5. The said changes occur at the micro level, via genes in the dna, and these pass on data [a program], which keeps enlarging its memory over successive generations and time - accumulating signs of good and bad actions, accumulatively. Here, a gene will propell instructions, and the host acts on these impulses - it fails till it succeeds, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level, it also destroys the original host form. The micro process has been traced to what is called a retro-virus, which, before perishing away, lodged an implant in a dna's gene, and this was passed on, even as the retro did not survive.
6. While Darwin himself never said all life forms emerge from one molecule, or that there is cross-sepciation, this is the inferred premise, which has been expanded and accepted by the faculty called ToE.

What Darwin or ToE does not say:

1. How life originally began; thus evolution is a process, picked up in mid-point of a process, and refers only to post original life emergence; namely is illustrates a process which has already began. This is not a lacking, because true origins of all things are unknown generally. However, we find a list of pre-life occurences in the genesis morde of evolution, namely anticipating life, and includes the seperation of the elements in critical modes, eg. seperation of water and land, light and darkness, male and female; for sure, life could not have emerged without these precedent events, despite all of the factors nominated in ToE.

2. ToE does not account for the emergence of male/female distinctions. A counter to it is that the origin of life was a dual-gendered entity, which became seperated later [Genesis]. This is a valid premise, as opposed to a male appearing and then a female being found with the exact, recipient traits in a sync mode: the odds for such are not plausable.

3. TE does not account for speech being a unique trait, one which makes modern humans a distinct species. Thus ToE focuses only on skeletal and biological imprints; as opposed to what else, one may ask here. While speech is seen by evolutionists as a mere different form of communication, this does not factor in the correct division of differentials, namely there are millions of communication modes - but only one which is speech. Here, speech has proven itself to be a difference in kind than degree, and no other life form has evolved to attain speech, despite the benefits of time and greater audio dexterity.

4. ToE does not successfully prove its cross speciation, aside from very doubtful and limited lab deconstructionism. Namely, it does not evidence itself in cross-speciation transit points in our midst, citing that this is because it is a very slow pace and takes millions of years. But this is a mathematical glitch: the time factor has no impact when the process is said to be 'on-going', which means w/o pause. This says, every second of time must evidence speciation, in our midst, and upon all places of the planet.

5. The first premise of evolution was recorded in genesis, as well as the first introduction of survival of the fittest, speciation and adaptation: these are cushioned in latent biblespeak, but are evident when read carefully, and was assuredly the means which sparked Darwin's evolution. Lets examine the differences between the two forms of evolution, as a means of understanding what evolution is, within these differences.

Differences between Darwinian and genesis Evolution.

1. Species in ToE are based on skeletal traits, and sub-devided into further sub-groups with common traits within that basic group. These are referred to as species. In genesis also, the life forms are devided in groups, and these are referred to as a 'KIND'. The genesis groupings are based on: immobile, sprouting life form [vegetation]; water based [fish]; air-borne [fowl]; land based [animal] and human. Within these groups, Genesis also caters to micro life forms such as bacteria and virues [swarms; dust], mammals, insects and creepy crawleys. Genesis also caters to a form of speciation, but limits this to a 'kind', namely a fish does not become an animal; a fruit tree does not become a bird; etc. Darwin contradicts genesis here by positing fossil imprints which signify a specie cross-changed from a previous one, bu pointing to certain fossil imprints which fit, like pieces of a jigsaw. However, other reasons can apply aside from cross-speciation here, and there is no evidential track record of a half/bird/half zebra [noting that the time factor does not apply in an on-going process]. In contrast, Genesis allows a saber tiger to evolve into a cat [feline sub-group of animals] - because they belong to the same 'kind' [land based]. There are arguements for and against here - it is by no means conclusive for ToE: the maths, when properly applied, negates ToE, which relies on the time factor.

2. The other factor of differential between these two modes of evolution refers to the transmission mode. Genesis says the seed factor is adequate to transmit all data, including skeletal and dna imprints, requiring no other assistance from any other source or one which goes back millions of years. Here, the seed factor, like speech, is totally disregarded by Darwin. But we have the situation whereby Genesis' mode can function without ToE's time factor, while ToE cannot subsist w/o the seed factor - and this is the proof ToE must overcome to prevail itself - namely it must evidence its various theories without the seed factor. This seed factor, and the speech factor, poses fundamental threats to ToE.

My view: I see the minutae process breakdowns of Darwin as a great knowledge base and contribution for science, but I see this as applying only to sub-groups. I also favour, via my own science based assessment, that Genesis' seed factor, dual-gendered original life forms, speech allocation for a seperate group, and its limitations to cross-speciation - as superios and more plausable than ToE.

You're wrong.

Except, of course, the bits that are written in IAmJosephese, rather than English, which are not even wrong.

You will have to choose between being wrong and being meaningless, 'cos you can't do both simultaneously.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 8:55 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by IamJoseph, posted 05-16-2008 5:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 93 of 122 (466953)
05-18-2008 8:34 PM


Jargon
Let's see if I've got this straight. IAmJoseph, a man who communicates, or rather fails to communicate, in a private language invented by himself which no-one else in the whole world understands ... is complaining about jargon?
Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Yrreg, posted 05-19-2008 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019