Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
235 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (4 members, 231 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,160 Year: 4,272/6,534 Month: 486/900 Week: 10/182 Day: 10/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4012 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 51 of 830 (499604)
02-19-2009 11:48 AM


one evidence
It has been said already that ONE single evidence can not sum evolution all up and constitute a powerful, undisputable and ultimate "proof" of the validity of the theory of evolution, "proof" that is repeatedly demanded by creationists who threat not to keep the viewpoints trade going if their demand is not fully and quickly satisfied at once... By the way, i have understood there is no such thing as "proof" in science.

But one very interesting evidence is the nylon eating bacteria.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:07 PM olivortex has taken no action
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2009 1:46 PM olivortex has taken no action

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4012 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 57 of 830 (499639)
02-19-2009 2:54 PM


words!
I'm glad to see that i have provoked some reactions. It seems language is both a mean and an obstacle to communication. It is an obstacle mostly when we decided not to agree on terms at the very start. cf my favourite F.Zappa quote.

There is a difference in science between "proving" a theory and confirming an observation.
That you have two legs is an observation, not a theory.

If you are going to confuse an observation (data) with a theory (an explanation for data) then we really have no common ground for communication.

I agree with Coyote, of course. I'm not one who likes to make some blur just for the fun of blurrying tracks, when we need to clear up the road, and even less when it comes to the evolution topic. Mumbo-jumbo is not my thing (to tell the truth, i hade never heard or read this expression before ;)). Pretending to get philosophical on this topic would make me look even more lost in front of some questions about life. Because i can feel like it sometimes. These questions, when discussed, imply honesty and respect of receivable arguments.

On other forums I have tried to be as conceding and honest as I could, in order to understand why i couldn't see the same way as creationists do. My fellows from "the other side" (to me there is no side, really) deliberately behaved as if they had forgotten some of the satisfying answers i had given them, as i was asked to give straight answers, that had to constitute...proofs. It's true that it's hard to avoid the rethorical aspect sometimes, but it's part of the discussion not only to show figures, to get conclusive all the way. I myself am not good at figures and science in general so i'll take any instructive info from anybody, no matter they're ID or ET supporters :)

Well thank you for the feedback. I hope i can keep on browsing the pages of this forum more often.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4012 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 63 of 830 (502290)
03-10-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Simonster
03-10-2009 3:15 PM


yep
I agree on this. here is a page with the details from ken Miller, though you may have seen it before:

The "flagellum unspun".
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

It is indeed an "important" point in the battle between ID an ET people, once more, the argument didn't stand long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Simonster, posted 03-10-2009 3:15 PM Simonster has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:33 PM olivortex has replied

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4012 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 65 of 830 (502294)
03-10-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
03-10-2009 6:33 PM


Re: yep
Sure, it brings us way back, but i actually think many people got it all wrong because of this:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." [p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow]

That brings us even earlier, to the starting point of the battle, in fact :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 03-10-2009 6:33 PM Taq has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022