Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
69 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1 (2 members, 67 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,178 Year: 4,290/6,534 Month: 504/900 Week: 28/182 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 451 of 493 (494575)
01-16-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 10:06 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
It's like creationists advocating creationism and exempting Genesis from creationism

What's the problem with that?

it's like Biblicalists exempting Genesis from apologetics for the Biblical record.

It's nothing like that. Genesis is achapter of the Bible. Biogenesis is not a chapter of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:44 PM fallacycop has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 452 of 493 (494576)
01-16-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by subbie
01-16-2009 10:04 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
subbie writes:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peg writes:

believe it or not, its only been in the last day or two that i've come to realize you all mean when you use the term 'creationist'. I thought i was a creationist, but now i realise that term is reserved for those who adhere to the young earth theories.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, you are incorrect. Anyone who attempts to invoke anything other than natural means to explain the development of life on this planet because they believe the ToE is insufficient is a creationist.

You're both wrong. I'm an example of a creationist who applies ToE to creationism and rejects YEC as Biblical as well. Creationism simply means that Goddidit one way or atother. :)


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:04 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 453 of 493 (494577)
01-16-2009 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 10:28 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
One question, Buz. Do you believe the ToE adequately explains the development of life on Earth? If not, why not?

Okay, I guess that's two questions.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:28 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:56 PM subbie has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 454 of 493 (494578)
01-16-2009 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by fallacycop
01-16-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Why Genesis?
falacy cop writes:

What's the problem with that?........

It's nothing like that. Genesis is achapter of the Bible. Biogenesis is not a chapter of evolution.

Falacy Cop, Genesis is a whole book of the beginnings of creationism, regardless of which way one interprets it. It is the most significant and important book in the Bible in that it not only records the genesis/beginning/birth/etc of creationism, but the genesis of all that's integral to the Biblical record; things like the genesis of the nation of Israel, and the genesis of Jehovah's kingdom on earth, i.e. the messianic era which is emerging into fruition.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:23 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:49 PM Buzsaw has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4755 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 455 of 493 (494580)
01-16-2009 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 10:44 PM


Re: Why Genesis?
Buz, you may be unaware of the fact that not all creationists are christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:44 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 11:06 PM fallacycop has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 456 of 493 (494581)
01-16-2009 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by subbie
01-16-2009 10:32 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
subbie writes:

One question, Buz. Do you believe the ToE adequately explains the development of life on Earth? If not, why not?
Okay, I guess that's two questions.

I see nothing in the ToE which violates my version of creationism. I've debated this fairly extensively over the years, beginning with member Jar in EvC's first Great Debate (Abe: and the lengthy peanut gallery thread following it open to all.) This stuff is in the archives somewhere. To go into it would lead off topic here.

The most debatable might be 3LoT in that I see the uniqueness of the eternal universe managed by an eternal designer as a perpetual machine of sorts.

I've fine tuned some aspects of my version in some areas over the years.

Edited by Buzsaw, : addition as noted


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 10:32 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 11:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 457 of 493 (494582)
01-16-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by fallacycop
01-16-2009 10:49 PM


Re: Why Genesis?
falacycop writes:

Buz, you may be unaware of the fact that not all creationists are christians.

Yes, Falacycop, I'm well aware of that and should have addressed the fact. I believe all secularist creos are OEC as I am. Correct me if mistaken. My comments were relative to Biblicalists. Thanks.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by fallacycop, posted 01-16-2009 10:49 PM fallacycop has taken no action

subbie
Member (Idle past 490 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 458 of 493 (494583)
01-16-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 10:56 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
quote:
I see nothing in the ToE which violates my version of creationism.

While this may be interesting, it's not an answer to the question I asked.

Assuming that by this statement you meant to say that you believe that the ToE does adequately explain the diversity of life, and that that was the process that a supreme being used to create life, then I would refer to you as a theistic evolutionist. I'm aware that some, Jar included, use the term "creationist" to refer to the concept that a supreme being created life on Earth through the mechanism of evolution. It's my position that to use the term in that way is to create confusion. The generally accepted usage of "creationist" is someone who disputes the the ability of the ToE to explain the diversity of life on Earth. While I acknowledge that some others may have different meanings attached to the term, that fact does not mean that my usage is wrong.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 10:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 5:30 PM subbie has taken no action

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 459 of 493 (494584)
01-16-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Peg
01-16-2009 8:25 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
eg, various breeds of chickens can reproduce together, but a chicken and a duck cannot, therefore they are different 'kinds' or 'species'

Duck is not a species. It is a group of genera. ie: Dendrocygna , Aix, Anas, Aythya,Somateria, Melanitta, Clangula, Bucephala, Mergus,Lophodytes, Mergellus, Oxyura & Nomonyx. Some of these genera have several species which cannot interbreed, and those of the different genera cannot. So explain the "Duck Kind."

Edited by bluescat48, : clarity


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 8:25 PM Peg has taken no action

Huntard
Member (Idle past 1530 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 460 of 493 (494597)
01-17-2009 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Peg
01-16-2009 8:51 PM


Re: how do we measure 'inferiority'?
Peg writes:

what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species?


Proof? Nothing. Evidence however, that's plentifull.

in 1999 a brochure by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in America says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

these finche's were studied in the 70's by Peter and Rosemary Grant who discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived better than those with smaller beaks. these findings were assumed to be significant apparently because the size and shape of the beaks is a primary way of determining the 13 species of finches.
they estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

ok so it seems that evolution might have a point with this example

Except that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again began to dominate the population. In the science Journal Nature 1987 a Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.”

So it seems the finch's were not becoming a new species at all but rather the population was being affected by the climate changes.


And what in this is NOT evidence of natural selection at work? First because of the drought the beak size increases, then when everything returns to normal, the larger beaks aren't necessary any more, and they gradually return to what they were before. Natural selection if I ever saw it.


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 8:51 PM Peg has taken no action

RAZD
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 461 of 493 (494598)
01-17-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Peg
01-16-2009 8:51 PM


Darwin's FInches, Grant's work and Speciation
Hey Peg,

Except that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again began to dominate the population. In the science Journal Nature 1987 a Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.”

So it seems the finch's were not becoming a new species at all but rather the population was being affected by the climate changes.

Except that the Grants said that this kind of development could result in speciation if it continued for 200 years. The fact that it did not continue does not invalidate their conclusion.

This is, btw, an excellent example of the response of evolution to the environment, and directly shows that there is no "direction" to evolution other than to adapt to the ecology around the organism.

these finche's were studied in the 70's by Peter and Rosemary Grant who discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived better than those with smaller beaks. these findings were assumed to be significant apparently because the size and shape of the beaks is a primary way of determining the 13 species of finches.

Not really. It is one of several morphological differences that field naturalists can use to distinguish between species, it doesn't cause speciation on it's own.

See http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7768.full
"Genetics and the origin of bird species," by Peter & Rosemary Grant

quote:
General Trends: Six Rules of Avian Speciation

As a means of summarizing the preceding discussion and survey of the literature we suggest there are six rules of speciation in birds:

1. Speciation is initiated in allopatry.

2. The sympatric phase of the speciation process is established after an allopatric period of ecological divergence.

3. Allopatric evolution of premating isolating mechanisms precedes the evolution of postmating mechanisms in allopatry or sympatry.

4. Premating mechanisms are governed mainly by additive effects of polygenes, postmating mechanisms are due mainly to nonadditive genetic effects (dominance and epistasis).

5. Premating mechanisms include effects of the cultural process of sexual imprinting.

6. Postzygotic incompatibilities arise first in females. This is Haldane’s rule applied to birds in which females are the heterogametic sex.


Note that they find the largest factor separating the different species is mating behavior, specifically song, not beak size.

Note that they also used genetic studies of the different populations to determine population separation and hybrid mixing.

For a review of the terms allopatric and sympatric see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric

quote:
Allopatric speciation, also known as geographic speciation, is the phenomenon whereby biological populations are physically isolated by an extrinsic barrier and evolve intrinsic (genetic) reproductive isolation, such that if the barrier breaks down, individuals of the populations can no longer interbreed. Evolutionary biologists agree that allopatry is a common method by which new species arise. (The word is derived from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland".) By contrast, the frequency of other types of speciation, such as sympatric speciation, parapatric speciation, and heteropatric speciation, is debated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric

quote:
Sympatric speciation is the genetic divergence of various populations (from a single parent species) inhabiting the same geographic region, such that those populations become different species. Etymologically, sympatry is derived from the roots sym- (meaning same, alike, similar, or fellow) and -patry (meaning homeland or fatherland).

So when they say that "The sympatric phase of the speciation process is established after an allopatric period of ecological divergence" they are talking about changes within the population/s after geographic separation has caused reproductive isolation, and behavioral pre-mating change, to then cause post-mating isolation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 8:51 PM Peg has taken no action

Percy
Member
Posts: 20754
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 462 of 493 (494609)
01-17-2009 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Peg
01-16-2009 9:40 PM


Re: arrogance and ignorance
Hi Peg,

I'm just reading along trying to catch up with all the posts from last night, but I just have to respond to this:

Peg writes:

i've inadvertently been arguing for something i dont agree with LOL

People have been questioning you about the contradictions between your views and your claim to be a creationist for a while now, since shortly after you joined, and the light bulb only goes on now?

More importantly, there are many other issues where you are equally confused, but you're just still unaware of them. At the rate of one eureka moment per month you should have everything figured out by 2012.

Could you take this fundamental error that you've just made as an indication that you should accept my earlier advice to review, rethink and revise your messages before posting them? There must be many times when you're typing where a little thought murmurs in your mind, "Didn't somebody say something about this already?" Don't just keep typing, go back and find out what they said. This will at least prevent you from raising the same already rebutted issues over and over again, and maybe it will set you on the road to thinking through what you say before you post it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 9:40 PM Peg has taken no action

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 2677 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 463 of 493 (494665)
01-17-2009 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Peg
01-16-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Starting from the Root
Gday,

Peg writes:

but its one thing to say that evolution is how species evolved from other species then not back up where the species began in the first place
thats why they are very much linked together

Yes, they are linked - one follows the other.
But so what?
They are DIFFERENT things, one following the other.

Many DIFFERENT thinks are linked -

Human conception occurs before human growth and life.
Do you insist a doctor treating a child MUST know all about the actual details of conception?

A building must bebuilt before it can be lived in.
Does that mean you must know how to build a house before you live in it?

A car is designed and built before it can be driven.
Does that mean you insist your taxi driver knows how to design a car before you accept a ride?

Do you see the problem here Peg?

Kapyong


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Peg, posted 01-16-2009 9:52 PM Peg has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2009 5:44 PM Kapyong has taken no action

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 464 of 493 (494669)
01-17-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by subbie
01-16-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Evolutionary Creationists
I'm aware that some, Jar included, use the term "creationist" to refer to the concept that a supreme being created life on Earth through the mechanism of evolution. It's my position that to use the term in that way is to create confusion. The generally accepted usage of "creationist" is someone who disputes the the ability of the ToE to explain the diversity of life on Earth. While I acknowledge that some others may have different meanings attached to the term, that fact does not mean that my usage is wrong.

Over the years in these debates with evolutionist members I have observed that, for the most part, evolutionists who call themselves creationists do so to establish a degree of legitimacy in both camps for sole purpose of using that role as leverage when needed at given areas of debate. I have come to this conclusion because people like Jar, for example regard a large majority of the Biblical record as myth. Well the majority of the record involves miracle/supernatural to some degree, so how can they claim the Biblical god as real, all the while denying most of what the book says that describes and informs about the god which they mouth.

Having said the above, likely that is not the case with some folks like Mike the Whiz or Phat who, imo, just don't apply enough logic to the implications of how evolution would lower the non-designing god they envision to the level of accomplishing about as much in the universe as the Buddha man made statues of Buddhism which are subject to whatever reverence and/or punishment men who constructed them chooses to effect upon them.

Most likely evolutionist creationists such as Jar should more accurately categorize themselves like Percy who has referred to himself as an agnostic.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by subbie, posted 01-16-2009 11:07 PM subbie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by AdminNosy, posted 01-17-2009 5:37 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 465 of 493 (494671)
01-17-2009 5:34 PM


Topic reminder
Evolution is the topic here. The topic is not "what is a creationist?"

Thanks.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022