|
Author
|
Topic: Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?
|
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2465 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: 04-08-2006
|
|
Message 61 of 104 (302370)
04-08-2006 11:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 60 by AdminJar
04-08-2006 10:43 AM
|
|
Re: Welcome to EvC
Ok, I don't know what "Pull up a stump and set a spell" means, but thanks anyway.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 60 by AdminJar, posted 04-08-2006 10:43 AM | | AdminJar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 62 by jar, posted 04-08-2006 11:38 AM | | kalimero has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 62 of 104 (302373)
04-08-2006 11:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by kalimero
04-08-2006 11:31 AM
|
|
Re: Welcome to EvC
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 11:31 AM | | kalimero has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 63 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 11:40 AM | | jar has replied |
|
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2465 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: 04-08-2006
|
|
|
Message 63 of 104 (302374)
04-08-2006 11:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
04-08-2006 11:38 AM
|
|
Re: Welcome to EvC
Which one r u?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 62 by jar, posted 04-08-2006 11:38 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 64 by jar, posted 04-08-2006 11:52 AM | | kalimero has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 64 of 104 (302379)
04-08-2006 11:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by kalimero
04-08-2006 11:40 AM
|
|
Re: Welcome to EvC
None, but I wanted you to see what pull up a stump meant. And now back to our Topic.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by kalimero, posted 04-08-2006 11:40 AM | | kalimero has not replied |
|
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2465 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: 04-08-2006
|
|
|
Message 65 of 104 (302452)
04-08-2006 3:53 PM
|
|
|
Benifits of the ToE
Knowing how life arose helps us: (15 pts') a) Investigate possible life elsewhere. b) Design life of our own. c) Predict where life is heading and prepare for the outcome. d) All of the above. e) It doesn't help us. What would your answer be? BTW: All of the things stated are actually starting to happen (bioastronomy, AI and designed viruses, tests for potential genetic deseases). {edited to remove unwanted frowny face) This message has been edited by kalimero, 04-08-2006 03:54 PM
|
Dierotao
Junior Member (Idle past 6116 days) Posts: 22 Joined: 04-03-2006
|
|
|
Message 66 of 104 (302540)
04-08-2006 8:37 PM
|
|
|
Thanks!
Chiroptera Percy pink sasquatch melatonin Quetzal sidelined kalimero I just wanted to praise the above authors for actually providing on-topic and well-thought-out information. Give yourselves a pat on the back. I do hope that of the next (possible) 234 posts, there may be a higher percentage of valuable information though. This message has been edited by Dierotao, 04-08-2006 09:57 PM
|
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: 03-24-2006
|
|
|
Message 67 of 104 (302553)
04-08-2006 10:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
04-08-2006 10:40 AM
|
|
And that's your problem. You never going to destroy ToE if you don't fight it on science's basis. Science considers microevolution as a part of ToE. If you don't consider microevolution as part of ToE, then what is it? Would you not then need a new term to get rid of the allusion to evolution? How can you argure effectively against ToE if you only attempt to breach but one part of it. It's like destroying a single leg on a chair. It does no good, because the chair is still standing. In effect, you make yourself look like a fool for choosing that strategy. If you really want to get rid of the ToE, then do this. Attack all branches of what biologist's consider to be a part of ToE. Accept their definitions and limits Do not change your definitions and limits just to avoid losing. In regards to that last one, it would be like the church changing the definition of geocentric in the light of the solar system being heliocentric, just so that they can so the solar system is still geocentric. Sort of when you all (creo's that is) refuse to accept what science considers transitional fossils by defining them in such a way as to make them not be transitional fossils (Archeoptryx, anyone?).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 10:40 AM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by Admin, posted 04-09-2006 12:26 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13016 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 68 of 104 (302613)
04-09-2006 12:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
04-08-2006 10:40 AM
|
|
Faith writes: But of course I don't regard microevolution as the ToE at all. I did not originally plan to respond to this, hoping that since you were replying to me that no one else would respond, but I see Kuresu has responded and so now I will, too. Please do not use a personal definition of evolution in discussion in any thread. Darwin included descent with modification in his definition, so it has been a part of the definition of evolution from the very beginning. If you feel the definition of evolution is incorrect and would like to propose a different definition then please propose a thread for that purpose. I'd like to close on a more general note. General criticisms that span the entire field of evolution should not be used in rebuttal of specific arguments or evidence. The reason for this is that you could take, for example, the argument that the definition of evolution is wrong into any evolution thread and quickly derail discussion from the thread's topic. Or you could take your claim that evolutionists are playing a definition shell game into any evolution thread and derail discussion of the topic. If you would like to discuss claims like these then please propose threads for them. They will not be permitted to derail discussion in existing threads.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 10:40 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13016 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 69 of 104 (302616)
04-09-2006 12:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by kuresu
04-08-2006 10:02 PM
|
|
Hi Kuresu, Faith will not be permitted to use personal definitions of terms to advance her arguments. There can be honest differences of opinions about the definitions of terms that can be explored in the threads where they come up, but in this case the difference is so dramatic as to be a thread of its own. I've encouraged Faith to propose a thread to discuss her definition. Please don't discuss that definition here as this moderator believes it has no merit or basis in fact whatsoever.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2006 10:02 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 70 of 104 (302809)
04-10-2006 2:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
04-06-2006 2:49 PM
|
|
Percy
I believe Faith was speaking in shorthand. She means that the part of the ToE not accepted by creationists, namely macroevolution, has no practical scientific application I do not wish to continue what may appear to be off topic but just what is the difference between micro and macro evolution at the level of viruses?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Percy, posted 04-06-2006 2:49 PM | | Percy has not replied |
|
whiskeyjack
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 71 of 104 (302837)
04-10-2006 8:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Dierotao
04-05-2006 12:38 PM
|
|
With such time and effort given to the scientific study of the origins of mankind, I wonder if mankind receives any benefit from these studies of origins? Has knowledge gained through Evolutionary theory advanced technology? Saved or healed lives? Brought peace and prosperity? Has the Theory of Evolutions "discovery" practically benefited, or advanced, humanity. Is the mere knowledge of truth about the origins of the physical universe beneficial to humanity? I.e. if Evolution cannot be directly, or physically, applied to the technological or social advance of man, does only it's knowledge actually benefit man (giving purpose to existence, motivation to succeed, personal ethical advance). Also, if the study of origins does benefit man, does it benefit man as much as an equal advance in another field? Is it better for man to understand his history and the implication thereof, or to focus on his current and future well being? Why or why not has the study of Evolution been promoted as being of such great value? Please understand that I am here refering not to mere micro-evolution, which most everyone would agree is fact, as well as beneficial to man. Rather, I am refering to macro-evolution, abiogenesis, big bang, geologic and fossil records, etc. Things which a staunch Creationist would typically disagree with. I suppose, as may be obvious from the phrasing of my questions, the answers I would most like to hear will come from a more humanistic mindset. I think knowledge is its own reward. This sounds cheesy but it’s true regardless. However I find it useful as it disproves creationism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Dierotao, posted 04-05-2006 12:38 PM | | Dierotao has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 72 of 104 (302843)
04-10-2006 9:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Ratel
04-05-2006 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: Percy
quote:
A poster on the IIDB evolution/creation board brought up the point that the man responsible for transplanting the baboon heart into that little girl (baby Faye?)rejected the idea of using a chimpanzee heart because he did not accept the evolutionary logic that chimpanzees were more closely related to humans than baboons. I don't know if a chimp heart would have worked, but the episode is illuminating nonetheless.
He was a Seventh Day Adventist surgeon at Loma Linda named Dr. Leonard L. Bailey, a Seventh Day Adventist Hospital. Baby Faye died 5 days after the operation because her body completely rejected the baboon heart. He made no effort to find a human donor for the infant before performing the procedure, nor did he refer her to another facility that could have repaired her heart. In addition, he completely ignored the basic biological concept of evolution, which should have informed him that a baboon was too distant of a species for a transplant to likely be successful. IOW, he ignored a great deal of evidence that should have informed him, but instead he maintained his religiously-based ignorance that killed that little infant. Bad, bad science and horrible ethics. He should be in prison.
Source
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Ratel, posted 04-05-2006 6:01 PM | | Ratel has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Here's one
quote:
Now... why is this is a direct result of the ToE? Well without the ToE how would we know to test drugs on chimps?
I've asked Faith this on numerous occasions and she's always ignored the point.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by Faith, posted 04-10-2006 9:39 AM | | nator has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 74 of 104 (302847)
04-10-2006 9:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
04-10-2006 9:34 AM
|
|
Re: Here's one
I am not posting on science threads because the powers that be don't like my style, but I will answer this just to repeat my usual theme song, which I've certainly said often enough: Genetics is not the ToE. Knowing genetic similarities and differences between the different species is genetics; there need be no idea of descent implied. And this basic reasoning goes for every other accusation that creationists oppose basic science. We do not. Science is not dependent on the ToE.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by nator, posted 04-10-2006 9:34 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by nator, posted 04-10-2006 9:51 AM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 76 by Admin, posted 04-10-2006 10:09 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 75 of 104 (302850)
04-10-2006 9:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
04-10-2006 9:39 AM
|
|
Re: Here's one
quote:
I am not posting on science threads because the powers that be don't like my style, but I will answer this just to repeat my usual theme song, which I've certainly said often enough: Genetics is not the ToE.
Genetics is a major confirmation and prediction of the ToE. That's why, when DNA and genetics were discovered to be the basis of all heredity for all life on the planet and was absorbed into the ToE, it began to be called The Modern Synthesis.
quote:
Knowing genetic similarities and differences between the different species is genetics; there need be no idea of descent implied.
The evidence, though, virtually screams common descent. Do you suggest that those who work with genetics can remain ignorant or unaware, or purposefully ignore the links between various species, genus, families, orders, etc.?
quote:
And this basic reasoning goes for every other accusation that creationists oppose basic science. We do not. Science is not dependent on the ToE.
However, much of our medical research of the last century or so IS most certainly dependent upon The Modern Synthesis, which is the melding of the ToE with modern Gentics.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by Faith, posted 04-10-2006 9:39 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2