Don't like the implications?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What practical purpose? The idea of evolution has no practical use.

It has practical application across a wide range of biological sciences - see Why Evolution Matters, Understanding Evolution is Important, Why Everyone should Learn Evolution, Why is it Important to Teach Evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

These are all textbook talks. No practical use. When it hits real data, the theory collapsed.

Not at all, it's based on real data, and it has practical use in epidemiology, and other fields.

To suggest that the fact that knowledge is published in textbooks devalues its usefulness is irrational. If anything, the distribution of knowledge increases its utility.

In what way do you think the theory (evolution?) collapses 'when it hits real data' ? What examples do you think demonstrate this?

 

[sfs]

In all of his posts in this thread, juvenissun has yet to raise one substantive point about, well, anything. It's just his usual vague poo-pooing. Meanwhile, scientists will go on using evolution to better understand the world.

 

[Speedwell]

What practical purpose? The idea of evolution has no practical use.

And you've got nothing to replace it with.

 

[juvenissun]

It has practical application across a wide range of biological sciences - see Why Evolution Matters, Understanding Evolution is Important, Why Everyone should Learn Evolution, Why is it Important to Teach Evolution?

No, it has none. You describe an use, I can tell you it does not need any idea of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

And you've got nothing to replace it with.

simple logic.

 

[Speedwell]

simple logic.

And what conclusion does your simple logic lead you to which explains the diversity of life which we observe?

 

[juvenissun]

In all of his posts in this thread, juvenissun has yet to raise one substantive point about, well, anything. It's just his usual vague poo-pooing. Meanwhile, scientists will go on using evolution to better understand the world.

I am not suppose to give any "substantive" point. I am the one who is asking question. You believe in evolution. You should give me a substantive answer to my question.

I, a creationist, can understand this world as well as you do, without using a single bit idea of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

And what conclusion does your simple logic lead you to which explains the diversity of life which we observe?

I don't know. Neither do you.

 

[juvenissun]

Not at all, it's based on real data, and it has practical use in epidemiology, and other fields.

No it does not. I don't believe in evolution, but I can still study epidemiology as well as you do.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know. Neither do you.

OK, but I have no objection to the theory of evolution, if that's what scientists want to speculate about. Do you?

 

[sfs]

I am not suppose to give any "substantive" point. I am the one who is asking question.

You haven't been just asking a question. You've been ridiculing the answers, without giving any substantive reason.

You should give me a substantive answer to my question.

I gave you substantive answers.

I, a creationist, can understand this world as well as you do, without using a single bit idea of evolution.

You've claimed this before, like when you said you could substitute other kinds of reasoning to come up with the same answers I was getting from evolution. It turned out you couldn't, but that had no effect on your conviction that you could.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know. Neither do you.

So much for your claim that 'simple logic' can replace evolution...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You describe an use, I can tell you it does not need any idea of evolution.

I've given enough information for interested lurkers who might be prepared to learn about it to discover more. There's little point posting more for those clearly not interested in learning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No it does not. I don't believe in evolution, but I can still study epidemiology as well as you do.

If you study modern epidemiology seriously, you'll find evolution playing a significant role in those studies, e.g. in the epidemiology of dengue-3, HIV/AIDS, influenza A, multidrug resistant TB, anthrax, listeria, and many other common viral and bacterial pathogens.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, but I have no objection to the theory of evolution, if that's what scientists want to speculate about. Do you?

No objection. But they should not say it is true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No objection. But they should not say it is true.

But it is true. Just because you don't like it (or understand it, as it really seems to be the case of), doesn't mean it's not true.

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't been just asking a question. You've been ridiculing the answers, without giving any substantive reason.

I gave you substantive answers.

You've claimed this before, like when you said you could substitute other kinds of reasoning to come up with the same answers I was getting from evolution. It turned out you couldn't, but that had no effect on your conviction that you could.

I don't remember that. I might stop the argument due to the lack of specific knowledge in a discipline (it would take me too much time to continue). But I never feel the NEED of using any principle uniquely specified in evolution to work on any scientific problems.

 

[juvenissun]

I've given enough information for interested lurkers who might be prepared to learn about it to discover more. There's little point posting more for those clearly not interested in learning.

You are the one who don't want to learn. If I were in your shoes, I will take this good chance to challenge my faith to evolution. You do not have this chance any where in this forum.

 

[Speedwell]

No objection. But they should not say it is true.

Frumious already explained to you the sense in which the theory of evolution is said to be "true:"

"If a model explains our observations, makes novel predictions that are found to be correct, is testable and falsifiable in many ways, but has passed all tests and not been falsified in over 150 years of exploration and experiment, has multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, explains a wide range of diverse phenomena, is parsimonious in conception, and coheres strongly with existing scientific knowledge, and there are no competing scientific hypotheses, it's called a 'correct model' - with the implicit qualifier that all scientific models are provisional, open to revision or falsification. In practice, models or theories that have been as successful as the ToE, are generally accepted as factually correct beyond reasonable doubt."

Does it explain everything? No, but it has not been falsified an anything it does attempt to explain. Have you got a better explanation? Obviously not.