Yikes DNA proves what??

[Blayz]

I disagree with this because it really confuses the issue.

Biology is a branch of science dealing with life. Evolution is a theory (among many) within that field. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

I disagree with your disagreement. What interesting (or even boring) areas of biology have no links to evolution?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I disagree with this because it really confuses the issue.

Biology is a branch of science dealing with life. Evolution is a theory (among many) within that field. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

evolution isnt just A theory of biology it is THE theory of biology. all obscure subfields within biology are linked via evolution. it is the unifying theory of biology. like plate tectonics in geology and atomic theory in chemistry.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I disagree with your disagreement. What interesting (or even boring) areas of biology have no links to evolution?

With respect to modern biology, probably none, but that wasn't my point.

My point is that biology encompasses various theories which touch on various aspects of life (i.e. evolution, genetics, cell biology, etc). While all those theories are linked, the point is that no single theory = the entire field of biology. It's just really confusing to make such a claim especially to people who don't know much about biology in the first place.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

evolution isnt just A theory of biology it is THE theory of biology. all obscure subfields within biology are linked via evolution. it is the unifying theory of biology. like plate tectonics in geology and atomic theory in chemistry.

See my prev response to Blayz.

 

[gamespotter10]

With respect to modern biology, probably none, but that wasn't my point.

My point is that biology encompasses various theories which touch on various aspects of life (i.e. evolution, genetics, cell biology, etc). While all those theories are linked, the point is that no single theory = the entire field of biology. It's just really confusing to make such a claim especially to people who don't know much about biology in the first place.

all the fields of biology are linked to eachother by the theory of evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I suppose I really need to clarify. My response was regarding the "evolution = biology" comment, not the "everything in biology is linked to evolution" comment. Indeed, I believe that all fields of biology are interlinked with each other (a network if you will).

I guess quoting the whole thing made my response even more confusing.

 

[Blayz]

I suppose I really need to clarify. My response was regarding the "evolution = biology" comment, not the "everything in biology is linked to evolution" comment. Indeed, I believe that all fields of biology are interlinked with each other (a network if you will).

I guess quoting the whole thing made my response even more confusing.

Yep, it's like you are the author of confusion...which I think makes you the antichrist (or an antichrist, I understand they come in 6-packs).

 

[Vene]

Yep, it's like you are the author of confusion...which I think makes you the antichrist (or an antichrist, I understand they come in 6-packs).

I thought all atheists were the anitchrist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now why is this evolution and not just biology?

The theory of evolution underpins biology. Indeed, tell me how you would predict adaptation and speciation without the theory of evolution.

Why is quantum mechanics not just just symbolic logic?
Oh, wait, it is: the former is a specific application of the latter. Likewise, evolutionary theory is a subset of biology in general (and an important one at that; Dobzhansky was right when he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution").

 

[Blayz]

At any rate Inan3, I have answered you post. Time for you to answer mine.

 

[Inan3]

It relies on evolutionary theory. It relies on the concept of common descent and natural selection, otherwise there would be no such thing as a neutral mutation rate, no reason for quantitative predictions of conservation => function to work consistently, there would be no such thing as phylogenetic inference, and no point what so ever in testing anything in animal models.

The fact you think evolution is all about skulls, fossils and chimpanzees is not surprising given the source of your information. The reality is there is little, if any, modern research done which does not in some way rely on the ToE, and the bulk of scientific research is forward looking, not backward looking.

What you don't get, Blayz, is my only source of these things has been here. I never thought much about this stuff (like most of the world) before coming to this forum in July of this year. You guys are my source most of the time. I then go and look up what you say and find out that it isn't always as black and white as you guys would purport. It's usually steeped in agenda against creationists and faith in God and comes with vague explanations. Any thing that is of any value usually has to be paid for so it's easy for the propaganda to be put out there with no one being able to prove it. We (you included) are expected to believe it just as they say. How many of those resources that they give are you able to or have you validated?

 

[Inan3]

The theory of evolution underpins biology. Indeed, tell me how you would predict adaptation and speciation without the theory of evolution.

Why is quantum mechanics not just just symbolic logic?
Oh, wait, it is: the former is a specific application of the latter. Likewise, evolutionary theory is a subset of biology in general (and an important one at that; Dobzhansky was right when he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution").

Although Darwinists often talk about the central importance of “evolution” in gaining a basic understanding of the natural world, my research reveals that the daily work of both scientific education (and in most scientific research), evolution is rarely mentioned or even a concern. This has been my own experience as a research associate involved in cancer research in the department of experimental pathology at the Medical College of Ohio and a college professor in the life and behavioral science area for over 30 years. As Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D. (Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island) noted, in the world of science research on a day-to-day basis, scientists

rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere (2003. p. 1).

The renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University, did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects” and found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed in answer to the question “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong?” found that the answers “for the large number” of those persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference,” and some added they thought it would for others (2003. p. 1). Of interest is Molecular, Cell and Development Biology majors at Yale University graduate school will no longer be required to take courses on evolution (Hartman, 2003).
......

If, as Dobzhansky stated, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1972 emphasis added), why is it rarely, if ever, mentioned in most natural and physical science books? And we usually use the leading college texts in each area (for example, the A&P text we use is the 10th edition of Hole, a standard text). And why is it a minor topic even in most introductory to biology books that cover the subject in more depth than most all other courses except formal classes on evolution? Also, while developing a college-level course on evolution, I surveyed most 4-year colleges and universities in Ohio and many in Michigan. I found that, for biology majors, at most only one class in evolution was required (and all schools surveyed used the same text, that by Freeman and Herron, a fairly good text that I also considered for my own class, which is now being developed).

http://www.rae.org/nothing.html

Tell it to the rest of the world.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Tell it to the rest of the world.

if you want your stance to be taken seriously back your arguments up by sources that are more reliable than creationist websites. The problem is that if we tell you anything, even if we get it from primary scientific literature, you will go to those creationist websites where they will twist everything based upon their religious bias and you will go back to us and spout ten PRATTs.

 

[Chalnoth]

What you don't get, Blayz, is my only source of these things has been here. I never thought much about this stuff (like most of the world) before coming to this forum in July of this year. You guys are my source most of the time. I then go and look up what you say and find out that it isn't always as black and white as you guys would purport. It's usually steeped in agenda against creationists and faith in God and comes with vague explanations. Any thing that is of any value usually has to be paid for so it's easy for the propaganda to be put out there with no one being able to prove it. We (you included) are expected to believe it just as they say. How many of those resources that they give are you able to or have you validated?

The thing is, Inan3, all universities and research institutions have subscriptions to these services. The cost of journals goes into the service they provide to the scientific community, that of peer review. Since it is typically only scientists at these places who are well-versed enough to check the work of other scientists in their own field of study anyway, this really isn't a problem for ensuring accuracy. Still, more and more scientists are making use of free archives (such as arxiv.org).

The real question, then, is whether or not the self-checking of science actually works. And there can be no doubt whatsoever that it does. Just look at the world around you. Everything that is manmade today has the mark of modern science upon it. Everything. The reason why all of these objects work so well is that the science they are based upon works so well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Tell it to the rest of the world.

The article does nothing to refute what I said. Indeed, to paraphrase its quote on Prosser, "Biology is a collection of facts, and evolution is the explanation for them".
Given that the intellectual world is almost unanimous in its support of the evolutionary underpinning of biology, I don't think I need to tell anyone.

 

[Schroeder]

The theory of evolution underpins biology. Indeed, tell me how you would predict adaptation and speciation without the theory of evolution.

Why is quantum mechanics not just just symbolic logic?
Oh, wait, it is: the former is a specific application of the latter. Likewise, evolutionary theory is a subset of biology in general (and an important one at that; Dobzhansky was right when he said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution").

useing what we know about evolution NOT the theory tells us about speciation and adaptation. Knowing how genes work tells us as well. the theory is just useing all of these facts to try and show how it got to be where it is. even though it doesnt really do that. why does it seem that everything found or newly understood is used to prove the theory but nothing in studying the theory finds new things. ONe can study how evolution(not the theory of) works or genes work ect and learn new insights, these then are used to "prove" the theory.

 

[Schroeder]

The article does nothing to refute what I said. Indeed, to paraphrase its quote on Prosser, "Biology is a collection of facts, and evolution is the explanation for them".
Given that the intellectual world is almost unanimous in its support of the evolutionary underpinning of biology, I don't think I need to tell anyone.

i think it does i show that the theory is NOT really important, that it is just a view of how things came to be. It uses science to support it. NOt science uses the thoery to support it or drive it or help it ect. If it was NEVER taught or spoken about science would move along just fine. If creationism was forgotten or never spoke about science would move along just fine as well. Its just a view point. Its not science it uses science.

 

[Chalnoth]

useing what we know about evolution NOT the theory tells us about speciation and adaptation. Knowing how genes work tells us as well. the theory is just useing all of these facts to try and show how it got to be where it is. even though it doesnt really do that. why does it seem that everything found or newly understood is used to prove the theory but nothing in studying the theory finds new things. ONe can study how evolution(not the theory of) works or genes work ect and learn new insights, these then are used to "prove" the theory.

Sure. If the theory wasn't correct, then it wouldn't work. It works, so we have a high degree of confidence that it's correct. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[Schroeder]

Sure. If the theory wasn't correct, then it wouldn't work. It works, so we have a high degree of confidence that it's correct. What's so hard to understand about that?

it doesnt need to "work" it does not do anything. why is it corrected over time. it has changed over time. this is the nature of science. science changes and if you use science then it changes with it.

 

[FishFace]

Contrariwise it is those that are blinded by their lack of faith that cannot see the truth. While it may be true that many who read the scientific evidence for evolution can see how strong and vast it is and just accept it as true, but there are also, many who read this same scientific evidence and realize that it is being manipulated by a theory which is flawed and can see it clearly because they are independent thinkers with open minds who refuse to be dictated to by intellectual prowess and degrading treatment.

One assumes that the latter set would be able to demonstrate these flaws and this manipulation, rather than just whine about being degraded.

You really are looking at a theory which goes beyond evidence. It's really quite comical to watch. They throw up a few pictures of a bunch of skulls, or cartoons of a line up of monkey to human, etc. and then give a little story and end it by saying, this is evolution and you fall for it hook line and sinker. They don't have to tell you where, when, how, or whatever, you just say, wow, evolution is true.

Every time you misrepresent the evidence for evolution you demonstrate you can't possible be in that set you talked about - you're just yet another one of those people who don't know or understand and, most likely, don't want to, the evidence in favour of the theory.
You never gave a satisfactory explanation of ERVs, human chromosome 2, or cytochrome c yet.

I have found that for the most they are really not thinkers at all. That's common though, people don't want to think for themselves they are content to just be the blind following the blind. It is quite sad really.

Who's blind - those who know what the evidence is? Or those who think it's just a bunch of skulls and cartoons with a nice story?

On the other hand there are the few that do think for themselves who would propagate and use evolution for their own edification. These are the dangerous ones. These are the instigators of hatred. It's quite familiar. There is no new thing under the sun.

They use some weird version of evolution, committing a well-known fallacy in moral philosophy and going beyond what science shows.

So I would say again, CONTRAIWISE, it is not that we cannot accept it but we will not. It is not that we are blind but we see more clearly.

You see more clearly, yet you ignore the bulk of the evidence and come out with such nonsense about skulls and cartoons? You should know, having been around for a while, the evidence for evolution goes way beyond that.