Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

[Sarkus]

Its been observed?

Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=eurekah.section.43112

does this mean you are outside the scientific community when you say it is a fact (in caps lock too I might add ...)?

You just do not seem to grasp the difference between the scientific FACT of evolution, and the THEORY of evolution.

Gravity = Fact
Theory of Gravity = THEORY (i.e HOW gravity works).

Evolution = Fact
Theory of evolution = THEORY (i.e. HOW evolution works)

The theory of evolution - the "how it happens" - is debated, especially how it happens on the large scales that non-scientists seem to demand to know.
Darwin offered the first real THEORY of evolution.

Do you understand now?

there are persons on the platform of directly perceiving such waves - there are no such persons on the platform of directly perceiving evolution - on the contrary it is a tentative claim based on a body of empirical knowledge

Evolution has been observed.
Deal with it.

 

[Prince_James]

NDS:

Can you use your favorite method, "eugenics," to develop a hump or two humps on llamas by selectivly breeding the four species of llama?

Notice the clear qualifier phrase "the four species of llama"

Apparently, I misread your post. Do forgive me.

To rephrase:

Yes, one could theoretically breed for humped characteristics, specifically if pre-hump characteristics were present in the foundational llamas. Hell, even breeding for llamas who stored fat along their back could induce what one wants.

Eugenics provides atremendous variety of things.

Supposing? If you suppose that a mutation like that could even take place then you admit Progressive Darwinian Evolution.

Since when did I deny this?

You seem to think I'm some creationist. I'm not. I am simply saying discussing the fact that your thesis that you cannot get wildly different animals in a short span of time is made moot by eugenics. Eugenics is controlled evolution, with a clear goal in place of ambiguious natural selection.

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

surely you don't suggest that the fossil record has lent itself to anything close to a singular consensus - just consider the variety of interpretation that has been read into the fossil record over the past 50 years (considering it often alludes to substantiating 'observations' many hundreds of thousands of years ago

There has been some varying viewpoints in the fossil record over specific fossils, but the majority of biologists tend to agree that the evolutionary record is strongly presupposed in the available fossil record, especially through the well-known lineage-creatures, such as the aforementioned ascent of man and the species preceding many common animals, like the horse.

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

As far as I am aware, recent evidence is rather conclusive on what we would expect an early Earth to have. Moreover, we are finding direct evidence of planetary disks right now in space, which could in the future show what would be the likely composition of that rocky planets like Earth.

intelligence is not behind my use of the screw driver as both a chisel and lever?

Certainly, your actions betray an intelligent cause. However, were you a designer of a living creature, presumably you'd want to remove the extraneous parts that serve no purpose.

For example: To build a house from a bridge, I'd remove the cables of the bridge, or at the very least, employ them for a totally different reason.

Is this logical?
A x time = A1
B x time = B1
therefore B1=A1

Not at all.

However, let us discuss something like this.

Ducks branched off from loons.

Neoduck branches off from ducks.

Neo-neo duck branches off from neo-ducks.

neo99-duck branches off from neo98-ducks, by which time it has scales, is 20 feet tall, and its wings have grown hands and can talk.

By this time, surely the comparative neo99-loon would be so remarkably different, that it would be the equivalent of judging the difference between a caterpillar and a dog, yes?

for that to be logical one would need evidence of inter genus movement - hence it remains theoretical

At present, a big example of this is the move from dinosaurs to birds. There are several famous dinosaur species that show explicitly avian features.

Thats my point - Things that could theoretically be true remain theories (at best)
just because one can synthesize the chemicals that life utilizes does not mean one has made any substantial progress in synthesizing life

This may be cleared up within fifty years, but I shall concede that there is so far no experimental proof showing that abiogenesis is possible, only very likely, owing to said amino acid production.

 

[Hapsburg]

Then why were the Hebrews at odds with the Sun worhippers? The Canaanites were Sun worshippers you know, as were the Egyptians.

Because the Hebrews thought the other tribes were worshiping the wrong way. And, they wanted their resources, land, and tax base. Wars are waged because humans are violent and they want what others have. Religion is used just as an excuse to justify conquests.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Because the Hebrews thought the other tribes were worshiping the wrong way. And, they wanted their resources, land, and tax base. Wars are waged because humans are violent and they want what others have. Religion is used just as an excuse to justify conquests.

*************
M*W: Welcome back, young man! Good to hear from you!

 

[Athelwulf]

The camel, for lack of a better term, syngameon which was on the Ark looked like a combination of the llama, alpaca, and camel, then when the offspring moved off in isolated breeding groups in disparate ecologic zones, the animals with characteristics best suited for a given zone had greater survivability, and so those characteristics predominated, this happened in a few generations.

Ice... You just explained evolution!

I'm thoroughly shocked.

 

[NDS]

Yes, one could theoretically breed for humped characteristics, specifically if pre-hump characteristics were present in the foundational llamas.

That is a big "IF," my friend. What is the minimum generations of llama eugenic breeding you would need to produce only one hump on a llama?

My guess is: You can't produce a hump on a llama no matter how many generations of eugenics you arrange. The only way a hump could form on a llama is through ADDITION of genetic information, not LOSS of it.

Your thesis that you cannot get wildly different animals in a short span of time is made moot by eugenics. Eugenics is controlled evolution, with a clear goal in place of ambiguious natural selection.

First off, the key phrase here is "controlled evolution." You would have to admit that "eugenics" and "nature" are two completely different things. Nature doesn't produce "wildly different animals" through "man controlled evolution." It just doesn't happen.

Next, please define what you mean by "wildly different animals" and "short span of time."

By "wildly different animals" do you mean "wildly different" in size? Do you mean wildly different because they develop new physical characteristics, such as a locking wrist bone (leopard) over a loose wrist bone (lion)? Or webbed feet (polar bear) over not webbed feet (other bears)? Please explain.

By "short span of time" do you mean 3 generations? 4? 5? Please explain.

 

[Prince_James]

NDS:

That is a big "IF," my friend. What is the minimum generations of llama eugenic breeding you would need to produce only one hump on a llama?

One.

Of course, this would be a ridiculous ideal. The likelyhood is more like a dozen or so.

My guess is: You can't produce a hump on a llama no matter how many generations of eugenics you arrange. The only way a hump could form on a llama is through ADDITION of genetic information, not LOSS of it.

Eugenics produces additions of genetic information. It's guided evolution.

First off, the key phrase here is "controlled evolution." You would have to admit that "eugenics" and "nature" are two completely different things. Nature doesn't produce "wildly different animals" through "man controlled evolution." It just doesn't happen.

Of course not. Man has only been around for 2 million years in archaic forms, and only some 100,000 as Homo sapiens sapiens.

Next, please define what you mean by "wildly different animals" and "short span of time."

Different species. And a short span of time being less than 1000 years.

By "wildly different animals" do you mean "wildly different" in size? Do you mean wildly different because they develop new physical characteristics, such as a locking wrist bone (leopard) over a loose wrist bone (lion)? Or webbed feet (polar bear) over not webbed feet (other bears)? Please explain.

Yes, and other characteristics. Technically speaking, of the applications of eugenics are as broad as evolution. It is feasible that in a few million years one could reach the equivalent of billions of years in evolution by natural progression.

Intelligent processes are by definition more efficient than random selection.

 

[NDS]

Okay, fair enough. IAC seemed to suggest earlier when you mentioned eugenics that eugenics proves his Deluge theory. I think he only saw the part of your post that he wanted to see and missed when you said "as opposed to out in the wild."

I think IAC thought that eugenics could happen in nature and then thought it supported his case, when clearly it can only happen as the result of humans controlling it.

 

[Prince_James]

He has abused my points, then.

No natural process can even approach the efficiency of eugenics by a long shot. It takes hundreds of thousands of millions of generations where it may only require hundreds under eugenics.

 

[lightgigantic]

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its been observed?
”
Yes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

speciation is something quite distinct from evolution - much like building an airplane out of an a4 piece of paper is something quite distinct from manufacturing passenger liners

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv....section.43112

This is what they have observed

In reference 135 we presented strong evidence for divergent evolution of structure and function in protein domains by relating proteins' structures to their functions.

a far shot from what amazing genus mutating stories we are expected to swallow in the name of evolution

“
does this mean you are outside the scientific community when you say it is a fact (in caps lock too I might add ...)?
”
You just do not seem to grasp the difference between the scientific FACT of evolution, and the THEORY of evolution.

Gravity = Fact
Theory of Gravity = THEORY (i.e HOW gravity works).

Evolution = Fact
Theory of evolution = THEORY (i.e. HOW evolution works)

The theory of evolution - the "how it happens" - is debated, especially how it happens on the large scales that non-scientists seem to demand to know.
Darwin offered the first real THEORY of evolution.

Do you understand now?

once again, the difference between gravity and evolution is that gravity can be directly perceived - since there is no possibility of direct perception in the name of evolution, its not clear why you gave it 'fact' status

“
there are persons on the platform of directly perceiving such waves - there are no such persons on the platform of directly perceiving evolution - on the contrary it is a tentative claim based on a body of empirical knowledge
”
Evolution has been observed.
Deal with it.

if that is a fact you need to provide links that clearly determine how evolution has or can be observed, just like one can with gravity

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince JAmes:

“
surely you don't suggest that the fossil record has lent itself to anything close to a singular consensus - just consider the variety of interpretation that has been read into the fossil record over the past 50 years (considering it often alludes to substantiating 'observations' many hundreds of thousands of years ago
”
There has been some varying viewpoints in the fossil record over specific fossils, but the majority of biologists tend to agree that the evolutionary record is strongly presupposed in the available fossil record, especially through the well-known lineage-creatures, such as the aforementioned ascent of man and the species preceding many common animals, like the horse.

even there are controversies or irregularities within these fields - all of which suggests the whole notion is tentative

“
"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller
”
As far as I am aware, recent evidence is rather conclusive on what we would expect an early Earth to have. Moreover, we are finding direct evidence of planetary disks right now in space, which could in the future show what would be the likely composition of that rocky planets like Earth.

Miller made the comment in response to new findings in the field which made his statements about how life formed out of a heating of base elements fallacious - as regards current ideas on how life formed from the matter, they insist on sticking with Millers general principle but (tentatively) suggesting an alternative sugar binding for the protein (tRNA instead of RNA) - the only problem now is to work out how such a sugar could possible survive severe heating required in the (current) understanding of how the universe was several billions of years ago ......

“
intelligence is not behind my use of the screw driver as both a chisel and lever?
”
Certainly, your actions betray an intelligent cause. However, were you a designer of a living creature, presumably you'd want to remove the extraneous parts that serve no purpose.


For example: To build a house from a bridge, I'd remove the cables of the bridge, or at the very least, employ them for a totally different reason.

and if my purpose is to use the same design for several purposes ?

“
Is this logical?
A x time = A1
B x time = B1
therefore B1=A1
”
Not at all.

However, let us discuss something like this.

Ducks branched off from loons.

Neoduck branches off from ducks.

Neo-neo duck branches off from neo-ducks.

neo99-duck branches off from neo98-ducks, by which time it has scales, is 20 feet tall, and its wings have grown hands and can talk.

By this time, surely the comparative neo99-loon would be so remarkably different, that it would be the equivalent of judging the difference between a caterpillar and a dog, yes?

at some point there you have B1=A1 (given that all we have is teh description of a duck and a neo98 duck, I can't say when)- the fossil record is frequently getting reshuffled because the claims are tentative
“

for that to be logical one would need evidence of inter genus movement - hence it remains theoretical
”
At present, a big example of this is the move from dinosaurs to birds. There are several famous dinosaur species that show explicitly avian features.

a chisel looks like a screw driver and a screw driver look like a crow bar too

“
Thats my point - Things that could theoretically be true remain theories (at best)
just because one can synthesize the chemicals that life utilizes does not mean one has made any substantial progress in synthesizing life
”
This may be cleared up within fifty years, but I shall concede that there is so far no experimental proof showing that abiogenesis is possible, only very likely, owing to said amino acid production.

therefore for the next 50 years (or at some point earlier when they make their expected break thru ) it should remain a theory, lest they have to rewrite too many science books at a later date by falsely riding something tentative as a fact

 

[Prince_James]

LightGigantic:

even there are controversies or irregularities within these fields - all of which suggests the whole notion is tentative

In as much as evolutionary science is still developing, you are correct that it is tentative. However, some broad hypotheses are essentially found to be so in all cases thus far observed. The aforementioned feasibility and likelyhood of evolution itself being so.

Miller made the comment in response to new findings in the field which made his statements about how life formed out of a heating of base elements fallacious - as regards current ideas on how life formed from the matter, they insist on sticking with Millers general principle but (tentatively) suggesting an alternative sugar binding for the protein (tRNA instead of RNA) - the only problem now is to work out how such a sugar could possible survive severe heating required in the (current) understanding of how the universe was several billions of years ago ......

Abiogenesis is most assuredly a complicated field requiring further research to demonstrate, it is hoped, an actual experiment whereby simplistic lifeforms may be created.

Now that would be something: If within 50 years, school children can make their own amoeba.

and if my purpose is to use the same design for several purposes ?

Presumably you could get by without altering some segments that both share superfluously, but such would be hardly efficient to say the least.

at some point there you have B1=A1 (given that all we have is teh description of a duck and a neo98 duck, I can't say when)- the fossil record is frequently getting reshuffled because the claims are tentative

The claims are indeed tentative, but does this imply that the entire principle is false? For generally there is a refining, rather than a throwing out, in science.

a chisel looks like a screw driver and a screw driver look like a crow bar too

If you see two people that look remarkably alike and the same age and sex, would you not think they are twins?

therefore for the next 50 years (or at some point earlier when they make their expected break thru ) it should remain a theory, lest they have to rewrite too many science books at a later date by falsely riding something tentative as a fact

I do not think they teach it as a fact as of yet. I know that they tend to juxtapose this notion with pan spermia, for instance.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James:

“
even there are controversies or irregularities within these fields - all of which suggests the whole notion is tentative
”
In as much as evolutionary science is still developing, you are correct that it is tentative. However, some broad hypotheses are essentially found to be so in all cases thus far observed. The aforementioned feasibility and likelyhood of evolution itself being so.

"liklihoods" belong to the field of theories

“
Miller made the comment in response to new findings in the field which made his statements about how life formed out of a heating of base elements fallacious - as regards current ideas on how life formed from the matter, they insist on sticking with Millers general principle but (tentatively) suggesting an alternative sugar binding for the protein (tRNA instead of RNA) - the only problem now is to work out how such a sugar could possible survive severe heating required in the (current) understanding of how the universe was several billions of years ago ......
”
Abiogenesis is most assuredly a complicated field requiring further research to demonstrate, it is hoped, an actual experiment whereby simplistic lifeforms may be created.

Now that would be something: If within 50 years, school children can make their own amoeba.

yes that is the hope - actually 50 years ago they were saying they would have made the break through - what happened along the way was discovering that cells are not just mere globs of matter but involve systems of construction and communication more complicated than New York

“
and if my purpose is to use the same design for several purposes ?
”
Presumably you could get by without altering some segments that both share superfluously, but such would be hardly efficient to say the least.

hence similarity of designs and evolution of a design are different

“
at some point there you have B1=A1 (given that all we have is teh description of a duck and a neo98 duck, I can't say when)- the fossil record is frequently getting reshuffled because the claims are tentative
”
The claims are indeed tentative, but does this imply that the entire principle is false? For generally there is a refining, rather than a throwing out, in science.

theories get refined to the point of direct perception - theories that cannot get refined to such a degree remain theories (or eventually get thrown out) - if you examine the history of any field of science you find examples of all three - (theories that culminate in direct perception, theories undergoing further refining, and theories that have been rejected)

“
a chisel looks like a screw driver and a screw driver look like a crow bar too
”
If you see two people that look remarkably alike and the same age and sex, would you not think they are twins?

yes - but then the birth of identical twins is an observable phenomena and to use it as an eg for extrapolation is tentative and doesn't follow the logic proposed to be behind speciation confirming evolution
After all, a chisel, screw driver and a crow bar remain distinct despite their similarities

“
therefore for the next 50 years (or at some point earlier when they make their expected break thru ) it should remain a theory, lest they have to rewrite too many science books at a later date by falsely riding something tentative as a fact
”
I do not think they teach it as a fact as of yet. I know that they tend to juxtapose this notion with pan spermia, for instance.

the irony is that when you get down to the nitty gritty of evolution they will determine that it is in fact a theory, but then you have other fields in anthropology for example, that present their findings as factual based on the evidence for evolution - its kind of like a complex algebra function that is correct but makes the initial error of 1+1=3 (or "the operation was a success but the patient died")

 

[Ophiolite]

My guess is: You can't produce a hump on a llama no matter how many generations of eugenics you arrange. The only way a hump could form on a llama is through ADDITION of genetic information, not LOSS of it.

More a matter of which genes you switch on and off, and for how long, I should think.

 

[NDS]

LG, hear me out here.

DNA is simply a sequence or code of certain chemicals, correct?

Why does new genetic material have to be created in order to form a new species? Why can't the sequence simply change from random folding of the DNA strands?

For example:

Say the DNA combo 1-4-3-3-4-2-1 produces a cat.

Then, over millions of years of folding and changing of the sequence, a new combo appears in the form of 1-4-3-3-3-3-2, and produces a Dog.

Notice how no genetic info was loss, or gained. It was simply changed around.

 

[Ophiolite]

Or, as I said before, "More a matter of which genes you switch on and off, and for how long, I should think."

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"liklihoods" belong to the field of theories

Yes. Although it should be noted that the main theses, again, of evolution are pretty well grounded and on top.

yes that is the hope - actually 50 years ago they were saying they would have made the break through - what happened along the way was discovering that cells are not just mere globs of matter but involve systems of construction and communication more complicated than New York

Check out something very interesting. It's called "The Game of Life". It's a mathematical "game" which works on a limited set of axioms, but which is computationally irreducible and can produce massively complex systems, some of which will never cease.

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

hence similarity of designs and evolution of a design are different

I agree that everything which could be created by evolution could be created by a creator. However, judging from the nature of the things we are discussing, it seems to imply not a creator, and least of all a perfect creator.

theories get refined to the point of direct perception - theories that cannot get refined to such a degree remain theories (or eventually get thrown out) - if you examine the history of any field of science you find examples of all three - (theories that culminate in direct perception, theories undergoing further refining, and theories that have been rejected)

Agreed. Or at the very least, mathematical perception.

yes - but then the birth of identical twins is an observable phenomena and to use it as an eg for extrapolation is tentative and doesn't follow the logic proposed to be behind speciation confirming evolution
After all, a chisel, screw driver and a crow bar remain distinct despite their similarities

Certainly you are correct. But clearly you can make reasonable judgements of descent and relation from the physical qualities of things.

the irony is that when you get down to the nitty gritty of evolution they will determine that it is in fact a theory, but then you have other fields in anthropology for example, that present their findings as factual based on the evidence for evolution - its kind of like a complex algebra function that is correct but makes the initial error of 1+1=3 (or "the operation was a success but the patient died")

I don't think anthropology makes any claims based off evolution, aside from those things relating to the fairly well established ascent of man. It is almost assuredly clear that we are related to Homo erectus, fo rinstance.

 

[Sarkus]

speciation is something quite distinct from evolution - much like building an airplane out of an a4 piece of paper is something quite distinct from manufacturing passenger liners

LOL!

LG, if you want to change the understanding of what evolution means - go ahead - use the word however you want.

However, NOONE will bother arguing with you if you redefine evolution differently from science - as this is not only science forum but this thread is about the SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution.

If by redefining it you win your argument - who cares!
I might define evolution as "the clock on my desk".
By doing so I can clearly show that it exists - but it means diddly-squat in terms of this thread - other than by pointlessly redefining the word I can get evolution to be whatever I want.

So either USE THE SCIENTIFIC "evolution" or stop debating on this thread.

once again, the difference between gravity and evolution is that gravity can be directly perceived - since there is no possibility of direct perception in the name of evolution, its not clear why you gave it 'fact' status

Because it has been observed.
See links above.

if that is a fact you need to provide links that clearly determine how evolution has or can be observed, just like one can with gravity

see links above.

 

[SkinWalker]

LG is apparently appealing to his ignorance and inability to understand as his means of arguing his points. Clearly evolution is an observed phenomenon. One need only look at the fossil record and need not look further to arrive at this conclusion. There's no need, in other words to demand evidence for abiogenesis or or any of the other BS attempts at misdirection and deceptive debating that the deluded masses of creationist nutbars appeal to.

Instead of looking at the matters at hand, these nutbars would rather appeal to ignorance and demand explanations that result in gods of the gaps: "science can't explain it, so my favorite god must of done it." Complete and utter b.s.