• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

evolution&dogs, book 2

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by billwald, May 7, 2007.

  1. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am soooooooooo looking forward to our debate.:D

    God Bless

    Key
     
  2. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Thanks, but I don't need any information about evolution from you -- I know quite a bit more about it than you do. Condescension is a bad strategy when you know less about a subject than the people you're talking to.
     
  3. Steezie

    Steezie Guest

    +0
    Key, are you getting that NO ONE is buying that you know anything about evolution
     
  4. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Being cocky and abrasive while being utterly wrong makes you look really pathetic. Especially when you contradict yourself within the same thread. :sigh:
     
  5. RedAndy

    RedAndy Teapot agnostic

    738
    +40
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    UK-Labour
    You are correct, because you didn't ask me to talk about the theory of evolution. You asked me to define what evolution is, which I did. The theory of evolution explains how these changes in allele frequencies take place, and with that come the inferences of common descent that many theists (including, I presume, yourself) seem so unhappy with.

    Common descent is an inference from the theory of evolution, which postulates mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer and so on as an explanation for how evolution works and how it has affected the history of the planet. You are correct that the existence of evolution as a biological phenomenon has no bearing on whether or not common descent is an accurate inference to make, or even whether the theory of evolution is correct, but those ideas are well supported by evidence - which Creationism and ID categorically do not have.

    Bearing in mind that evolution (as in "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time") has been observed, how exactly do Creationism or ID explain this? The theory of evolution is the best explanation of evolution, as it is supported by mountains of evidence. Creationism and ID are entirely unsupported, and technically speaking aren't even explanations of anything.

    Yes, it is all I view evolution as. However, I do not believe - as Creationists tend to - that there is no way in which cumulative "changes in allele frequencies in a population" can account for the diversity of life on earth. I consider the common descent hypothesis to be extremely well-supported, and that makes me anything but a Creationist.

    What you have demonstrated overwhelmingly is that you do not understand the difference between an observed phenomenon and the theory invoked to explain that phenomenon. I consider evolution to be the change in allele frequencies I have defined, but that does not mean I do not support the theory of evolution, which is something else entirely. I mean, did you really think I was going to let you get away with that?
     
  6. Baggins

    Baggins Senior Veteran

    +452
    Humanist
    Married
    UK-Labour
    You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about do you? :D

    Full marks for chutzpah
     
  7. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I can say I expected this answer.

    About the Theory of Evolution, or the Definition?

    Please explain the contradiction, or is this where you just take one line here and and one line there and place them out of context and think this makes you look smart, or proves a point.

    I'll let you know, it does not.

    I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science.

    Fair enough, It seems we agree here.

    Ok let me explain this to you, in the Theory of Creation, life was created at a base level, what this level is, we are not sure, but, all types of life where created, each with it's own distinct differences. IE: Fish, Birds, Mammals.

    Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional or, in the case of ID, it may have been cultivated and controlled to the point that the life forms could develop the eye structure with artificial selection in a controlled or even unnatural environment, IE: a Lab.

    Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes.

    So ID makes the claim that in cases like this, a designer must have intervened, when a half point or a progressive "steps" is not a plausibility.

    I am sure you will have a rebuttal to this, and I would like so very much to see it. In a way, I want to see if it is more then smoke and mirrors.

    Pity, that is so well supported, because we have discovered that there are a great many limitations to it. Given it was via artificial selection, but it is still a good study.

    I have no idea what you will and will not do, I can make a prediction, based on what you have done in the past, but that does not mean I know what you are going to do.

    However, Allow me to enlighten you, Evolution as Defined:

    Dictionary.com

    Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


    However, notice, in the definition, Artificial Selection, is not listed.

    Now it would be great if we all could make up our dentitions for things, wouldn't it, then we could throw out dictionaries, and make words mean what ever we wanted them to, to suit our own needs and agenda.

    Now, maybe you don't like that Definition. It does not suit your needs.

    Maybe you would like a few of these:

    Oxford:

    noun 1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection
    Merriam-Websters:

    the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)
    : [SIZE=-1]PHYLOGENY[/SIZE] b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

    Or will you just be tossing around your own as it suits you.

    See the problem I had with you, is that you asked me to define a word, this word was "Evolution", now why should I have to do that, when others before me, have taken the time to make entire volumes that have these definitions ready for me at my fingertips.

    Help me out with that one, what was your motive?

    Maybe I do, maybe I don't.

    Eh.. :scratch:

    God Bless

    Key
     
  8. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Bah.. 7 pages of banging my head on wall.. I'm done...

    Been great...

    God Bless

    Key
     
  9. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Are you seriously going to try and worm out of this pickle you're in by accusing me of quote mining? If I were quote mined I would have surely included the proper context as evidence. Why wouldn't you? Go ahead, show me the context for how you can get from declaring that the different breeds of dogs are due to "simple genetic drift" to "very active selective force" without contradicting yourself. Or is it that you actually need those terms explained to you? :confused:
     
  10. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    And just think... if you had just stopped long enough to hear what the people with actual knowledge had to say you might have learned something. What a waste. :sigh:
     
  11. Steezie

    Steezie Guest

    +0
    Aaaaaaaand its a rout!
     
  12. Skaloop

    Skaloop Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

    +824
    Atheist
    Married
    CA-NDP


    And finally, you show that you do, indeed, not know what you are talking about. Impossibility of the evolution of the eye is the most oft-refuted of the "irreducible complexity" PRATTs. Divide up the major steps of eye evolution (sensitive patch to sensitive pit to simple gelatinous lens to hardened lens to human eye) and each of those stages can be found in nature. So clearly, each step is useful.
     
  13. RedAndy

    RedAndy Teapot agnostic

    738
    +40
    Agnostic
    In Relationship
    UK-Labour
    There is evidence for common descent. Lots of it. Have a link. No, have two.

    What is the evidence for this "Theory of Creation?" Certain fields like comparative genomics, etc., seem to point far more to the idea that fish, birds, mammals, molluscs, plants, prokaryotes etc. all had a common origin. Frankly I can see no compelling non-Biblical evidence pointing to a Creation event. The empirical evidence suggests common descent - have a look at the first of the links I gave (it's a lot of reading but I'm sure you'll find it interesting).

    How does your claim that the "progression" of the eye is not plausible reconcile with the fact that Darwin, in The Origin of Species, postulated a series of progressive steps in which the eye could evolve - and, furthermore, every single one of these different steps has been found to exist in nature. You cannot claim the false dichotomy that all sighted organisms have either "photosensitive cells" or a "fully formed" (by which I suppose you mean mammalian) eye when there are examples in nature of the very things you suppose do not exist. Some snails, for example, have an eye analogous to a pinhole camera.

    I, by the way, am short-sighted. I find it laughable that you suggest that since my eye is not completely perfect, I should simply resign myself to the fact that I might as well be blind. That, in essence, is what you are suggesting - anything less than perfect is impossible.

    The problem is that no such case has ever been found in nature. Every single Creationist example of "irreducible complexity" has been refuted.

    I thought I'd help you out by highlighting a little part of the definition. This definition does not claim to be the be-all and end-all of evolutionary processes. It doesn't mention lateral gene transfer, either, but we have good evidence that this has been a very significant process during the course of evolution, particularly in the early stages of single-celled life.

    You claimed that there was a difference between "adaptation" and "evolution," and you had defined "adaptation" in a way that most would consider to be evolution. My motive was to work out precisely what you meant when you referred to evolution.
     
  14. Jane_the_Bane

    Jane_the_Bane Gaia's godchild

    +3,176
    Pagan
    Legal Union (Other)
    UK-Greens
    Wrong. Simply and utterly wrong. Except for problems of size, all dogs can mate and produce offspring - and would do so willingly if given the opportunity. The offspring, in turn, is fertile.

    Yet mules are infertile, suggesting that horses and donkeys are no longer the same species - or at least on the verge of drifting apart completely.
     
  15. Pesto

    Pesto Senior Member

    957
    +26
    Atheist
    Single
    We do. The nautilus.
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +5,147
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Sorry, but I really do have expertise in this area, and I see no reason to pretend that I don't.
     
  17. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Great Danes and Chihuahuas are unable to mate (without extreme measures taken by humans) which makes them separate species by definition. Due to intermediate sized dogs which can allow genetic flow between Chihuahuas and Great Danes it is better to classify dogs as a rings species of sorts, or better defined as speciation in progress.

    About 1 in 10,000 jennies (female mule) produce a foal. This is too few to have a viable population. Horses and mules are effectively separate species.
     
  18. Steezie

    Steezie Guest

    +0
    The problem of size is a pretty big problem. A Great Dane will NOT mate with a Chihuahua of its own accord. If you dont believe me, get a male Dane and put it with a female Chihuahua and see what happens and I can guarantee you it wont be reproduction

    The offspring of certain dog species are so consumed with genetic defects as to be impossible to breed the species without human intervention.
     
  19. Key

    Key The Opener of Locks

    +153
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am still waiting to be impressed.

    Are you talking about THIS?

    Now, see, there are not "steps" in case you missed this, these are Punctured Equilibrium jumps, which might be an issue for you, depending on what "Theory" you cling to when you seek to discuss Evolution, are you in the Gradual group, the Catastrophic, there are many "Theories" and many different views on evolution, sadly, many of them are incompatible, such a Pity that.

    Tell you what, when you learn what you are discussing, and when you can tell me, which method you subscribe to, then we can talk.

    Right now, all I see is people saying "You don't understand evolution" and getting incorrect definitions, and on top of that, I see people spouting incompatible methodology.

    So tell me, what insight do you possess, what hidden knowledge do you gain as a "believer" in evolution that I do not have open to me? Is this a little private cult of yours, maybe, Hummmm?

    See this is really when you come off as having no grasp of what you are talking about, because see, if it is Scientific, then it is open to everyone, it is not a "private" thing. Unless your trying to make it into one. If that is case, I hope you do enjoy your new religion.

    Read that.. and That... and as far as I see for this "Evidence" it is nothing more then Adaptation, and a lot of speculation.

    I have read them, in case you did not know, after all, unlike many people here, I have studied this bunk.

    But that is not the issue, I guess you can cling to what ever you want. So tell me, what method of evolution do you cling to?

    The eye is fully functional, IE: it is not a progression of nor is it mid step in it's design, it is functional as an eye.

    For example, a Near-sighted person has a fully functional eye, it may not be perfect, but it functions fully. It does not function "Half Way".

    Progression would place the development of this as a "gradual" method, where the eye, would be in mid process to becoming a functional aspect of the life forms. We do not have that, we have functional, and non-functional.

    Maybe the problem is your failing to grasp the process of "gradual" as opposed to what you have been told the answer is.

    Ahh joy an argument by outrage, how lovely. And completely missing my point.

    Did I expect any less... not really...

    Really? we have "Gradual Bones" and "Gradual" skin, and Gradual Scales, and Gradual Hair, and gradual aspects of all our components. Wow, I never knew that. Seems that all these levels of gradual development must exist, like half functional skin, and partially functional bones, or maybe marrow and no bones, or bones with no marrow, or maybe, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    That is why it is a definition and not the Theory as a Whole.

    All I can say, is that the more you study, and the more you look at all the sources, the more things become clear.

    If you want evolutuon to be true, you will only look at what you want to see to support yoru beliefs.

    I challenge you to look at the other side objectively.

    I really don't think you can.

    The Nautilus has fully functional eyes, so, I do not see your point.

    Are you thinking that there was a requirement for a Lens?

    Have you never looked at an insects eyes? Notice that the eye is compound, and right after the lens is a crystalline cone, not some ball of jelly like a mammal eye. Did you really think it was the components that I was talking about?

    Maybe even a lobsters eyes, notice how it has a completely different make up from our own eyes, the lens functions in a different manner, and even it's composition of the lens being around the eye, as opposed to being in the eye, I mean, really, you will have to do better then this in the future.

    The Lack of a Lens would not make the eye "Half Functional" anymore then the fact that humans only have a limited lens would make our eye less functional, or the fact that an insect has a crystalline cone and a human does not, would make a difference.

    Please, do you all not grasp the concept of gradual evolution?

    Anyway, it has been fun.

    Let me know when you have something good to put on the table, something beyond the PAX6 just came to be, and lo and behold, there was sight.

    God Bless

    Key
     
  20. Baggins

    Baggins Senior Veteran

    +452
    Humanist
    Married
    UK-Labour
    :D

    Priceless

    Keep it up, it's comedy gold.

    Half functional skin :)
     
Loading...