Darwinism: Science or philosophy?

[Sky]

Nails&Thorns, consider yourself banned.

goodbye.

 

[Nails&ThoRns]

thanks for the consideration

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by blader
That's perfectly fine with me. I'm glad we agree that merely believing that you are a scientist is not enough, quite unlike being a Christian.

Oh, by the way:

"sci·en·tist Pronunciation Key (sn-tst)
n.

A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."
- American Heritage Dictionary

scientist

\Sci"en*tist\, n. One learned in science; a scientific investigator; one devoted to scientific study; a savant. [Recent]
-Webster

scientist

n : a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciences [syn: man of science]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

I am an expert in one or more sciences. I prefer the other definition, though, and since it is M-W, it is certainly a valid definition. So I'm a scientist, either way. I guess that makes us brothers.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sky77
Nails&Thorns, consider yourself banned.

goodbye.

Stay on topic. Talking about being banned has nothing to do with science, creation or evolution, so you risk being banned if you continue on this topic.

 

[Douglaangu]

What fields are you an expert in then?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

The KKK sez: The Supreme Court has even ruled that indeed America was founded as a Christian nation.

Demonstrably false. So the KKK are not only Christians, they are liars. Dangerous combination. Lots of Christians like to repeat this particular lie these days. I wonder if Christian Soldier thinks it's true.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by Morat
You've had the pleasure of Boatwright's um "company"? Is he still trolling around Usenet?

He comes by occasionally, though not as often as he used to.  I just hope that npetreley or the other creationists don't find him!  Should they add Boatwright's incredible 'Ha Ha Ha' argument to their vast repretoir of impenetrable LOGIC, we evolutionists would be doomed!

Edited to fix spelling mistake.  Whenever I contemplate Boatwright's vast genius, I just can't post straight.

 

[XmagickaX]

Originally posted by Morat
http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

 

 

Ok..."how stuff works" is probably not the best place to get scientific information regarding things of this nature.

From the article

 The theory of evolution succeeds in explaining why we see bacteria and mosquitoes becoming resistant to antibiotics and insecticides. It also successfully predicted, for example, that X-ray exposure would lead to thousands of mutations in fruit flies. 

   Oh you mean the fruit flies that were deformed and couldn't survive outside of the lab? This has already been proven.

What good is an experiment showing beneficial change in an animal when that animal woulndt be able to survive outside of lab conditions?

 

 

[edgeo]

Originally posted by XmagickaX  
What good is an experiment showing beneficial change in an animal when that animal woulndt be able to survive outside of lab conditions? 

Yes, you are correct.  These are examples of mutations that would be selected against.  It is just the other side of the coin of natural selection. 

 

[XmagickaX]

Originally posted by edgeo
Yes, you are correct.  These are examples of mutations that would be selected against.  It is just the other side of the coin of natural selection. 

Right, I understand that...what I don't understand is, like in that article, that results like that are touted in evolutions favour. (remember that beneficial mutations are what result in evolution or change, not ones that leave a species unable to survive outside of controlled conditions.)

It's misconceptions like that, that convince me that much of evolutions argument is mere rhetoric and process, light on real facts, and heavy on mere appearance. While I surely do not have all the answers...I have a hard time trusing most proponents of evolution simply for the fact that they have often times taken many things out of context and almost always refuse to admit there are things they do not know.

Creationists are guilty of this too, but are more quick to admit there mistakes...in my experience anyway.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"not ones that leave a species unable to survive outside of controlled conditions"

Mutations affect particular individuals, not entire species.

 

[XmagickaX]

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
"not ones that leave a species unable to survive outside of controlled conditions"

Mutations affect particular individuals, not entire species.

 

Are you arguing that changes to an individual when given enough time(evolution only takes time right?) do not affect the species as a whole?

Please explain your logic...

 

[Morat]

XMagica: As this thread started during Gunny's posting spree of links taking from random Creationist sites (links he never discussed, commented on, or did anything but spam the board with), I replied with something just as on-topic and equally undiscussed.

Oh you mean the fruit flies that were deformed and target=_blank>couldn't survive outside of the lab? This has already been proven.

What good is an experiment showing beneficial change in an animal when that animal woulndt be able to survive outside of lab conditions?

   First off, those experiments were deailing with mutation. Not speciation. Secondly, when species to speciate, they do so in response to the enviroment. Whether it's the London Underground, or a lab. Thirdly, if you actually want a couple of dozen examples ot speciation, all you have to do is ask. Talk.Origins maintains two lists: Both lab events, and in the wild.

Are you arguing that changes to an individual when given enough time(evolution only takes time right?) do not affect the species as a whole?

Please explain your logic...

   They only spread to the population if they're neutral or beneficial. That's the point of natural selection.

 

 

[XmagickaX]

Originally posted by Morat

   First off, those experiments were deailing with mutation. Not speciation. Secondly, when species to speciate, they do so in response to the enviroment. Whether it's the London Underground, or a lab. Thirdly, if you actually want a couple of dozen examples ot speciation, all you have to do is ask. Talk.Origins maintains two lists: Both lab events, and in the wild.

 

  


I realize what the experiments were dealing with....However, saying that they respond to their environment either in the lab or elsewhere is bad reasoning. Lab conditions are nearly always set in advance to get the most favorable results.(The Miller experiment comes to mind, no?) What good are skewed, unrepeatable results?

 

 They only spread to the population if they're neutral or beneficial. That's the point of natural selection.

WRONG...

Changes (negative, neutral, beneficial) are given to the species, or taken away if you will...These are CHANGES...and they happen all the time. The nature of the change is inpertinent when talking about these things.

 

 

[Morat]

I realize what the experiments were dealing with....However, saying that they respond to their environment either in the lab or elsewhere is bad reasoning. Lab conditions are nearly always set in advance to get the most favorable results.(The target=_blank>Miller experiment comes to mind, no?) What good are skewed, unrepeatable results?

  What a ridiculous argument. Is it actually your contention that mutations don't happen? Or that they're not random?

  (Oh, and the Miller experiment was 50 years ago, in what was considered the atmospheric conditions of the time. I'm sure this shocks you, but they've actually progressed a bit since then. Really.).

Changes (negative, neutral, beneficial) <I>are </I>given to the species, or <I>taken away</I> if you will...These are CHANGES...and they happen all the time. The nature of the change is inpertinent when talking about these things.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Wrong. Mutations happen to individuals. Do you honestly believe an entire species mutates in the same way instantly?

&nbsp; Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mutations occur to individuals. Natural selection insures that only beneficial mutations spread rapidly throughout the species. (Neutral ones will spread slowly, and harmful ones not at all).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by XmagickaX
What good is an experiment showing beneficial change in an animal when that animal woulndt be able to survive outside of lab conditions?

You don't see the benefit of having a fruit fly on a tiny life support machine with non-working eyes on its wings? Oh, sure, it's not much good for the fruit fly, but it gives lots of jollies to the evolutionists.

 

[chickenman]

the benefit is that it helps scientists understand development (and the fact that we are evolutionarily related to these flies means that it has implications for human development)