Originally posted by KellyJayOk, well, I don't feel it is expedient to repeat what I know about evolution here, since the discussion seems to be covering so many different aspects of the debate without focusing in on any one.
We are talking about two different things here, the start of life from
non-life and evolution.
For the start of life from non-life the amount of time is important,
but it does not start even counting until all the conditions are in place.
If for example the universe as is, is so harsh life can not only not
start much less be maintained it does not ma ...[text shortened]... as NO WAY, it blows me
away so many bright people here buy into it hook line and sinker.
Kelly
I think you (and possibly many others in this thread) will find it instructive to read my my thoughts on evolution here:
http://severoon.googlepages.com/science%3Adefinition
and here:
http://severoon.googlepages.com/evolution
I feel that after you read the content there you'll be hard pressed to find any reason why evolution and evolution theory shouldn't be taught in public school classrooms and creationism / intelligent design should not.
(By the way, others have argued in this thread that ID and creationism are distinct ideas--what?! Did you somehow miss the Kansas school board court case, featuring the missing link--"crintelligent designism"--between the two?)
Originally posted by snowinscotlandAbiogenesis isn’t evolution I agree, but you’d be hard pressed not
Absolutely agree with you. Abiogenesis is not evolution, and we are only talking about evolution.
If you think about what is happening in your generational line. There are several sets of genes in your line, related presumeably with the same mother and father. Now you and your brother have very similar genes, but for whatever reason; he has not had ...[text shortened]... ldren), but does not have his. Do you wonder what that means, or do you know what that entails?
acknowledge it since if you cannot start the process it does not matter
how compelling your arguments about the process are! With respect
to my childless brother and losing his unique genes from our gene
pool, it is a non-issue as far as I’m concern and this topic. No one
worries about losing information within any given gene pool, things
disappear and break down all the time in this universe, it is the
getting of new information into the gene pool where the debate arises.
Kelly
Originally posted by severoonI'm using the common words of many in this discussion, "small
You're using loaded words in your response. What is a "small" change to you?
There is a single mutation that occurs in some people that increases their risk of colon cancer to a 70-80% likelihood they'll be afflicted with the disease at some point in their lives. Is this a "small" change? If it's small to you, is it small to me?
More to the point, doe ...[text shortened]... appen to feel they are small or not) can manifest large or small phenotypical changes.
changes" just happens to be one of them. I'm in agreement too that
simply the size of the change may be small, it doesn't mean the
effect it has is, it is also one of my pet complaints about the whole
process taking life from a single cell to the variety we see today.
With all the pit falls that could have stopped the whole process
we know of, and those we more than like don’t know about to see
such a successful variety of life in the face of those things that
could have stopped the process, is a compelling reason to think
more than just random mutations were involved in the forming of
life even with natural selection as a filter for it.
Kelly
Originally posted by severoonI’m not at all suggesting evolution shouldn’t be taught in public
Ok, well, I don't feel it is expedient to repeat what I know about evolution here, since the discussion seems to be covering so many different aspects of the debate without focusing in on any one.
I think you (and possibly many others in this thread) will find it instructive to read my my thoughts on evolution here:
http://severoon.googlepages.com/scien ...[text shortened]... board court case, featuring the missing link--"crintelligent designism"--between the two?)
schools, as I’m not opposed to creation and ID being taught there
either. As a creationist I believe both the evolutionist and the ID
people attempt to do the same thing with much of the same
evidence. Both have a point of view and attempt to use DNA and other
things to get others to see why when they present their take on things
it is indeed scientific and the proper way to interpret the data.
Between evolution and design one side believes so strongly their
interpretation is correct and the other isn’t, they not only deny the
possibility they could be wrong, but also call the other take on the
matter not scientific. I think that is laughable, but that is just me.
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't change the parameters half way through. Your question was:
That's a sound theory, but it doesn't answer the question asked. The question asked concerns the cause for such immediate acceptance by more than a few, without any experimentation or other substantiation.
How do you account for such immediate acceptance of (what remains to this day) a theory without demonstrable proof?
I present Einsteins Theory of Relativity which has no demonstrable proof and you admit that you too accept it. So, answer your own question or admit that your were being misleading.
Now you appear to be making a different claim, that the Theory of Evolution has not means for experimentation or other substantiation. Since you have a habit of changing your words or claiming different meaning or claiming that I am mind reading or otherwise putting words in your mouth, please confirm whether I am correct that you are making that ridiculous claim, and I will then show that you are wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHApparently you know as little of maths as you do of evolution.
Sensible is not the right word for your position, given everything we know. If I have a camp, it is certainly not one prone to making extravagant claims about any magic man. Given the mathematical probabilities of how evolution acounts for life, it is safe to say the Bible's rendition of the same is far less extravagant.
What solidfies those in your c ...[text shortened]... r such immediate acceptance of (what remains to this day) a theory without demonstrable proof?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is an outright lie. You have frequently and deliberately tried to mis-characterize both evolutionary theory and mathematics. You would not do that simply because of the math. You would simply be able to present a sensible mathematical argument.
I am not unconvinced due to contradictory personal beliefs. I am unconvinced because of the math.
For example, what do you mean by:"the tenets of the evolution faith"?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo your argument is, even if evolution takes place, if you cannot explain the start of life then it is meaningless?
Abiogenesis isn’t evolution I agree, but you’d be hard pressed not
acknowledge it since if you cannot start the process it does not matter
how compelling your arguments about the process are! With respect
to my childless brother and losing his unique genes from our gene
pool, it is a non-issue as far as I’m concern and this topic. No one
worries about ...[text shortened]... iverse, it is the
getting of new information into the gene pool where the debate arises.
Kelly
And then you go on to say that the selection of genes is a non-issue?
The selection of genes is key to evolution. If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandMeaningless, no, why would that be? Evolution is just a process and
So your argument is, even if evolution takes place, if you cannot explain the start of life then it is meaningless?
And then you go on to say that the selection of genes is a non-issue?
The selection of genes is key to evolution. If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?
that is that. Now how much can we credit it for is another thing all
together isn't it? That isn't answered until we know how the process
started, even when it started isn't that big a deal either if we do not
know how in my opinion. If it couldn't start with non-living chemicals
coming together without help, that says something, if it did that says
some thing else, but simply acknowledging small changes in the here
and now does not answer much with respect to how it began. Just
as looking at a car driving down the road doing 75 mph does not
tell us where the car was 3 hours ago, or if we see a 50 hour candle
burning that has burned half way down, simply having some info
does not give us all the answers as to how or when something began.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't change the parameters half way through.
Don't change the parameters half way through. Your question was:
How do you account for such immediate acceptance of (what remains to this day) a theory without demonstrable proof?
I present Einsteins Theory of Relativity which has no demonstrable proof and you admit that you too accept it. So, answer your own question or admit that your were being ...[text shortened]... am correct that you are making that ridiculous claim, and I will then show that you are wrong.[/b]
No parameters have been changed; the question remains the same.
I present Einsteins Theory of Relativity which has no demonstrable proof and you admit that you too accept it.
Two problems with your example. Firstly, AE's first proposal for relativity (special theory) came in 1905 to no great fanfare, and by no means was acceptance wide-spread or immediate. Neither did his general relativity in 1915 upset the applecart too awful much. It wasn't until the eclipse of 1919--- 14 years later--- that people began to take notice. Why? Because the theory (or at least parts) could be demonstrated through testing.
Contrast relativity's inconspicuous introduction with that of Chuck's initial offering for evolution, "Origin of Species..." To great fanfare, the initial printing of 1,250 books sold out before even released... no small feat in 1859.
And while Chuck's work suggested new ground, much of what he built upon was already known and widely used, i.e., specialization of characteristics via breeding manipulation. The new ground his work did introduce, i.e., one species becoming another, remains unproved to this day, 148 years later.
Secondly, my acceptance of AE's ToR has not been admitted nor denied.
Now you appear to be making a different claim, that the Theory of Evolution has not means for experimentation or other substantiation.
Appearances are deceiving. As stated above, back in 1859 ToE received immediate acceptance among some (in even unrelated fields) without even a scintilla of supporting evidence. ToR, however, languished for a considerable amount of time. Only after passing a very substantial test (a whopping 14 years after introduction) did ToR begin collecting adherents.
Again, the question--- which has remained the same--- why do you think ToE walked into a standing ovation on its debut?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou misunderstand.
Meaningless, no, why would that be? Evolution is just a process and
that is that. Now how much can we credit it for is another thing all
together isn't it? That isn't answered until we know how the process
started, even when it started isn't that big a deal either if we do not
know how in my opinion. If it couldn't start with non-living chemicals
comin ...[text shortened]... having some info
does not give us all the answers as to how or when something began.
Kelly
If you are saying that the start of the process is key then you do not understand that evolution is not so much a process as the result of a process, and only a small part of the process is what we can see. I am asking you if you can see that
the selection of genes is key to evolution.
I asked 'If the genes that do not reproduce are not lost there is no selection, and hence no change in the genepool, and no evolution. Do you understand that?'
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStill at your usual lies I see. You avoided answering my question and then changed your question. You know it, I know it, any sane reader of this thread knows it.
No parameters have been changed; the question remains the same.
Contrast relativity's inconspicuous introduction with that of Chuck's initial offering for evolution, "Origin of Species..." To great fanfare, the initial printing of 1,250 books sold out before even released... no small feat in 1859.
I see that I missed your emphasis on "immediate". However you should withdraw you statement about demonstrable proof as you know very well that no scientific theory in the world has or likely ever will have demonstrable proof.
Who is Chuck?
Secondly, my acceptance of AE's ToR has not been admitted nor denied.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "It is a sound Theory".
Appearances are deceiving. As stated above, back in 1859 ToE received immediate acceptance among some (in even unrelated fields) without even a scintilla of supporting evidence. ToR, however, languished for a considerable amount of time. Only after passing a very substantial test (a whopping 14 years after introduction) did ToR begin collecting adherents.
Again, the question--- which has remained the same--- why do you think ToE walked into a standing ovation on its debut?
Again, you lie. You have changed the question for a second time.
You specifically had an extra clause in that question both previous times different ones each time.
The answer to your most recent version of the question is quite simple: There was and still is, significant and undeniable evidence for it.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBe careful not to confuse The Theory of Evolution and 'evolution'. They are not the same thing. Evolution is a simple and obvious fact, almost by definition.
Apparently you aren't aware of probabilities and how understanding the light they shed on the topic renders evolution a mathematical impossibility... regardless the amount of time.
As for your claims about mathematical impossibilities, the reason he is not aware of them is probably because they have not been published. In fact I have never heard of that before, maybe you could enlighten us or provide references?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever you should withdraw you statement about demonstrable proof as you know very well that no scientific theory in the world has or likely ever will have demonstrable proof.
Still at your usual lies I see. You avoided answering my question and then changed your question. You know it, I know it, any sane reader of this thread knows it.
Contrast relativity's inconspicuous introduction with that of Chuck's initial offering for evolution, "Origin of Species..." To great fanfare, the initial printing of 1,250 books sold out be ...[text shortened]... on is quite simple: There was and still is, significant and undeniable evidence for it.
Eh? How so?
Who is Chuck?
Charles Darwin, author of "Origin of Species... "
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "It is a sound Theory".
Yet another example of the limitations of internet debate. My "that's a sound theory" was directed at your "my guesses" for the acceptance the general acceptance of AE's ToR, not a comment one way or another regarding the actual ToR.
The answer to your most recent version of the question is quite simple: There was and still is, significant and undeniable evidence for it.
This is your response for the question 'why the immediate ovation for a theory's debut,' it is to be assumed?