Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Within my knowledge, continental drift hypothesis fits perfectly to your description. we knew it works, but did not know how it works. There is no basic assumption anywhere in this example. It is simply a prediction based on pattern of data.
Like virtually everything in the theory of evolution.
So the basic assumption of evolution may be: the mechanism of change is not important as long as the result fits.
Creationists say "Assumptions" like how magicians say "Abracadabra." When a lot of research, experiments, and empirical evidence are presented, the creationists say "assumptions" to magically make it all go away. Why argue the actual data when you can convince your audience it is wrong with one simple word? I've been noticing this more and more as I discuss science and Christianity on other forums and read some creationist literature. It's always "they are basing it on assumptions" or "take away their assumptions and it all falls apart".
"Presuppositions" is another one.
So annoying.
I have no idea how this applies to evolution.
The mechanism tells how we get the result.
The mechanism of plate tectonics tells us how we get continental drift. And note that the concept of continental drift was not considered a scientific idea until the mechanism was discovered.
Evolution as the concept that species changed over time was around long before Darwin. But it wasn't a scientific idea until Darwin proposed a mechanism.
What is a bit confusing, I guess, is that in biology, both the result (species change over time) and the collection of mechanisms (mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) that account for that change are called "evolution".
Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.
Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe, even the ones we have not discovered. However, there are specific solutions that were arrived at during the development of life on Earth which may be peculiar to Earth. The structure of the DNA double helix.(Prof. Robert A. Weinberg)
Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions.
Not until recent, the genetics was not known. So attacks made to evolution on its mechanism by creationists were fully justified. Today, the genetics is still miles short from providing a clear mechanism to evolution. So, it seems to be right to call the mechanism of evolution the major assumption of the theory.
Some were. Since Darwin and his contemporaries had an erroneous model of inheritance, attacks on natural selection based on that model were justified.
But when Mendel gave us a better model of inheritance, he also gave us the key to understanding how natural selection and inheritance work together, not at cross-purposes.
Why do you think that genetics is miles short of providing a clear mechanism to evolution? Most of the genetic application to evolution deals with the origin of variation (something Darwin had no explanation for at all). But while the appearance of variation is an essential starting point of evolution, changes in species (as opposed to changes in single organisms) are pretty well covered by population genetics where selection is the key mechanism.
I don't know genetics. Compare to me, you or sfs knows a lot more. But I heard that we do not know what combination of genes can be changed in order to positively control any biological character without any side effect. This said to me that we have a long way to go.
Oh geez, this tripe again. No, it is not an a priori assumption, it is a conclusion based on evidences such as ERVs, nested hierarchies, etc etc etc.Anyway, the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry is the first assumption of Darwinian evolution, it comes before everything else and transends all modern academic thought.
Notice that Darwinian evolution applies to all life in the universe before we have even discovered it
Show how it is but all the others I listed are not. Furthermore, it is not an atheistic materialistic thought any more than electromagnetism is, gravity is, chemistry is, etc etc etc.This is an a priori assumption, a substantive principle that transends all atheistic materialist thought.
And before we went to the moon neither was anything else i listed above for matter outside the earth. So why isn’t that under fire?It is not based on positive proof or empirical testing, it need not be demonstrated or directly observed.
No more than electromagnetism is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for the origin of lighting. You see, you’re doing it as well, and it’s just as wrong and invalid when you do it too.t the heart of this atheistic philosophy is an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations for biological origins
Ignore points we make and cry out that the opposition requires persecution of you. That card has been played too much and we all know it’s false.Now in the offshoot psuedo-theology loosely described as TE you are only required to make a mockery of creationism, nothing else required.
It’s not an a priori assumption, it’s a conclusion. OTOH, your a priori assumptions are not allowed to be questioned or you are called an unbeliever and blasphemer.You must never admit to the a priori assumption nor are you allowed to question it.
Ummmm... no. If you raise questions you can look to find the answers. If you try to bring something directly against all the scientific progress calls for and halt the progress of science on a point by bringing in the supernatural, then it isn’t considered science.f you raise even the most general query you are immediately expelled from the Temple of Nature as an infidel.
Well, that is a knowledge we would need to deliberately manipulate evolution ourselves. It isn't necessary to know how evolution happens naturally.
Do you think you understand natural selection?
I often find that people who have difficulty with evolution tend to neglect natural selection and don't really understand how it works. In nature, natural selection is what takes care of the side effects of genetic change.
I think I have gone through this argument several times. In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".
Does the natural selection say more than the first sentence of the above? Why should it be hard for people to understand it? I think it is a pretty simple idea. And it should simply NOT be the key process in the theory of evolution.
What do you mean by "forward?"In a nutshell: Natural selection is controlled by environment, and environment does not promote "forward" evolution. But the facts show that if evolution did happen, it was definitely not random and have definitely moved "forward".
What do you mean by "forward?"
It means it has a distinct direction of movement (change).
example: bacteria changed to animals. But animals do not change back to bacteria. Chimp changed to human, but human will not change back to chimp no matter what the natural selection can do.
No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.
That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.
Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.
Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.
When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.
No, bacteria did not change into animals.
And chimp did not change into human.
That is where you are getting the idea of common descent incorrect.
Chimp and human both trace their ancestry back to the same ancestor--but the ancestor was not a chimp and not a human either.
Bacteria had a role in the formation of eukaryotic cells and eventually one small group of eukaryotic species (out of more than 60 groups) became ancestors of animals, but the ancestors of the bacteria we know today were never ancestors of animals.
When it comes to evolution, you have to stop thinking trains and start thinking trees.
What is the main point?You do not have to correct these minor points. I know they are not precise. They were used to address the main point which you neglected.
What direction does it suggest that humans, E. coli, fruit flies and bananas all share a common ancestor?In fact, the concept of common ancestor strongly suggests that evolution has a direction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?