Evolutionary debate

[AV1611VET]

Semantics may be the spice of life, but I think I'll stick with a nice Earl Grey

What does that mean?

ETA: LOL -- nevermind -- my wife just told me -- (it's a tea).

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, I haven't.

Why replace one heresy with another?

Evolution needs to be replaced with something non-scientific -- as in creationism.

Let me guess: Science can take a hike because you hold it to a higher standard?

And don't forget: creationism came first, not evolution.

Mistakes come first, then the correction.

It was junk science that [thinks it] replaced creationism.

Science thinks? Are you feeling ok, AV?

 

[plindboe]

When "Chemical Evolution" is included with "The Theory of Evolution" then the two are connected. Textbooks, Dictionaries, and little else will change that.

Yes, they are connected, but they are different fields of studies, done by different kinds of scientists, using different mechanisms to explain different things.

Even Wikki-pedia fails to draw a clear distinction.

Actually it does, right in the beginning of the article: "In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of already living things change over time, or with cosmogony, which covers how the universe might have arisen."

In any case, why you feel abiogenesis deserves to be elevated to the highest status in science by calling it a theory is beyond me. I can only assume that you're the greatest supporter of abiogenesis in the world.

Peter

 

[Split Rock]

No, I haven't.

Then why did you bring up theories/hypotheses about the moon?

Why replace one heresy with another?

A scientific theory cannot be a heresy, since science says nothing about God. It is only when religion oversteps its limitations and tries to tell us about nature that such events happen.

Evolution needs to be replaced with something non-scientific -- as in creationism.

Why would scientists replace a scientific theory with a religion based psuedo-science like creationism? What would it help us to understand about nature? Goddidit? Then what? Dadology, Embedded Age, Renewal Creationism, what?

And don't forget: creationism came first, not evolution.

True. We replaced a theologically based incorrect idea, with a true scientific theory.

It was junk science that [thinks it] replaced creationism.

Wrong again. Modern Creationism is poorly disguised junk science that is a throwback to the days when we didn't understand very much about where species came from. It made some sense back in its day, since we didn't have a scientific answer, Now, it is just a pathetic attempt to avoid the implications of reality.

 

[sfs]

In theory.

In practice, the less evidence - the greater the speculation, and the more confident the conclusions. When the "evidence" is the most contrived and difficult to obtain (and double check) then the conclusions are as bold and sure as possible. Weather prediction is an example everyone is aware of.

Sorry, but this is a really weak come-back. TV weathermen are not science and weather forecasts are not scientific publications. Unless you've read real meteorological publications and can show that they systematically misrepresent the uncertainty in their field, you aren't able to make any comment about the science at all.

(As an aside, real weather forecasters are well aware of the uncertainties in their business and quite upfront about them. Sometime when there's a hurricane threatening, look at the detailed forecast discussions available through the National Hurricane Center. They describe (rather cryptically, to be sure) what data they're using, what different models predict, what the tracking uncertainties are, and how they decide to make the forecasts and warnings.)

Evolutionism has followed that pattern. The smaller the bone, the bigger the dinosaur. (mostly kidding)

Hmm. Either you have an extensive knowledge of a vast range of data in several fields of science, including paleontology, genetics and systematics, or you're talking through your hat. Which is it?

 

[USincognito]

(As an aside, real weather forecasters are well aware of the uncertainties in their business and quite upfront about them. Sometime when there's a hurricane threatening, look at the detailed forecast discussions available through the National Hurricane Center. They describe (rather cryptically, to be sure) what data they're using, what different models predict, what the tracking uncertainties are, and how they decide to make the forecasts and warnings.)

My father did weather for 36 years with the Air Force on active duty and as a civilian retiree so I had a vicarious front seat view of how meteorology is done. SW seems to think that weather forcasting is some sort of dice throw based on localized conditions. Predictions are based on past observations, regional, national and worldwide data. Take Dallas currently. The Jet Stream is running way to the north and there's an area of low pressure hoving above us. That means we're going to have consistently hot and humid conditions as we won't get an injection of cold air and the low draws moist air off of the Gulf. We also won't be getting any rain because storms develop when fronts butt up against each other. SW might see this as little better than scapulmancy, but it's real science.

SW, can you explain why, if science is pulling slips if paper out of a hat, the paleontologists were able to find Tiktaalik fossils where they predicted or meteorologists wanting to deploy tornado sensors picked the right day back in May to do so in Oklahoma?

 

[AV1611VET]

SW, can you explain why, if science is pulling slips if paper out of a hat, the paleontologists were able to find Tiktaalik fossils where they predicted or meteorologists wanting to deploy tornado sensors picked the right day back in May to do so in Oklahoma?

I'm going to take a guess at this, since I have no idea what I'm up against -- but it's a guess nonetheless.

1. Paleontologists were able to find Tiktaalik fossils where they predicted because they predicted Tiktaalik fossils all over the place and were bound to hit one of them.

For every one they found, how many did they miss?

2. Meteorologists picked the right day in May to deploy tornado sensors because meteorologists picked every day in May to deploy tornado sensors and were bound to hit one right.

For every correct day in May, how many days were they incorrect?

Again though -- I'm just guessing.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm going to take a guess at this, since I have no idea what I'm up against -- but it's a guess nonetheless.

1. Paleontologists were able to find Tiktaalik fossils where they predicted because they predicted Tiktaalik fossils all over the place and were bound to hit one of them.

For every one they found, how many did they miss?

2. Meteorologists picked the right day in May to deploy tornado sensors because meteorologists picked every day in May to deploy tornado sensors and were bound to hit one right.

For every correct day in May, how many days were they incorrect?

Again though -- I'm just guessing.

Guessing based on what you want to believe is true. And you are indeed, wrong. They looked for Tiktaalik in Devonian river delta sediments because that is the only type of rock that fishapods are found in. So the question isn't what if they didn't find them where expected... the question is why are they not found where they are not expected?

 

[AV1611VET]

So the question isn't what if they didn't find them where expected... the question is why are they not found where they are not expected?

I know what the question was, and I answered it to the best of my ability.

Hang that Arab Phone up -- I'm not answering it.

 

[USincognito]

AV, you contribute little more to this subform than you do to your counting threads and I've had you on ignore for years, but since Split Rock quoted your response all I have to say is this...

"I'm going to take a guess at this, since I have no idea what I'm up against..."

You should have taken the second part of this as advice. CF's server space isn't infinate and your brain droppings are only taking up space that could be used by posts with actual content.

 

[Split Rock]

I know what the question was, and I answered it to the best of my ability.

Hang that Arab Phone up -- I'm not answering it.

Does "Hang that Arab Phone up -- I'm not answering it" mean "I'm wrong (as usual) but I refuse to admit it because I am God?"

 

[Nathan Poe]

I know what the question was, and I answered it to the best of my ability.

A pretty unflattering commentary about your abilities, then.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which is precisely what I said
You said "Chemical evolution [is] part of evolutionary theory". I said you claim that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution. What on Earth is the difference?

The difference is that if you accuse a person of a false statement and then change the wording of what they said.......the first crime may be a mistake but the second is deceit.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The difference is that if you accuse a person of a false statement and then change the wording of what they said.......the first crime may be a mistake but the second is deceit.

Me: "Your claim was that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution..."
You: "Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory."

What is the difference between our two statements?

 

[SkyWriting]

Me: "Your claim was that chemical evolution is part of biological evolution..."
You: "Everyone thinks that Evolution and Chemical Evolution are part of evolutionary theory."

What is the difference between our two statements?

I only said one of them.




Most people think of "The theory of Evolution" or "Evolutionary Theory".
And they link both with the understanding of a totally natural explanation of how life formed on earth. As do most sources of information on the subject.
Darwin implied it as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I only said one of them.




Most people think of "The theory of Evolution" or "Evolutionary Theory".
And they link both with the understanding of a totally natural explanation of how life formed on earth. As do most sources of information on the subject.
Darwin implied it as well.

Well, yea. When scientists talk freely of 'evolution' or 'the theory of evolution' without a qualifier, they mean the theory of common descent (i.e., "the theory that all life descended from a single common ancestor, with biodiversity arising from evolution by natural selection", where 'evolution' means 'allele frequency change in a population over time').
If they're being technically correct (as one must be around Creationist, since they think a typo is an admission of guilt), then 'evolution' refers to the aforementioned allele change, or they'll specifically mention the theory.

It's not difficult. As I've already demonstrated, this system of nomenclature is the norm in science, and, indeed, among most laymen. There are niche alternative uses for 'evolution', mostly referring to some gradual change such as nuclear synthesis, but evolution proper is what I said above.

Don't conflate chemical evolution (i.e., nuclear synthesis in novae) and abiogenesis (i.e., the chemical origin of the first 'living' systems, or systems ancestral to life) with biological evolution, especially since that is specifically what we're talking about.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't conflate chemical evolution (i.e., nuclear synthesis in novae) and abiogenesis (i.e., the chemical origin of the first 'living' systems, or systems ancestral to life) with biological evolution, especially since that is specifically what we're talking about.

Don't ignore reality when writing posts.

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't ignore reality when writing posts.

The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins.

In what way does this invalidate my post? I explicitly stated that chemical evolution is a term sometimes used to refer to abiogenesis, while making clear that the theory of common descent is a separate theory. Your link merely demonstrates that.

One needn't go further than their homepage to see this:

"How life began is arguably the most intriguing question of our time. Determining the chemistry required for the de novo appearance of life is also an important scientific problem, as its solution will have a major impact on chemistry, other scientific fields and the human desire to know if life is possible in other places of the universe. The scientific objective of the Center for Chemical Evolution is to demonstrate that small molecules within a model inventory of prebiotic chemistry can self-assemble into polymers that resemble RNA and proteins. The members of this Center hold the common belief that achieving a “one pot” self-assembly of life-like polymers is possible and an attainable scientific goal."

 

[RyanLeeParis]

I don't believe it.

The main reason I don't is because we've never seen a species turn into a different species.

What came before the cow? The spider? The cat? I've yet to see the creatures that came before them, or turned into them. They just aren't there.

It would take a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

 

[Vatis]

I don't believe it.

The main reason I don't is because we've never seen a species turn into a different species.

What came before the cow? The spider? The cat? I've yet to see the creatures that came before them, or turned into them. They just aren't there.

It would take a lot of faith to believe in evolution.

We haven't seen a creature evolve? The cat which you mention is a pretty good example that we have. The egyptians took wildcats, and kept the smallest and tamest and let those breed. Thus, by natural (or in this case human) selection, the wildcat evolved into a domestic cat. The same principle applies to the cow, domestic cows are evolved by man from some wild bovine creature. Cows as they are today aren't even able to survive without man. We have observed many examples of evolution, for example various insects can evolve immunities against insecticides like DDT.
If you think it takes faith to believe in evolution you don't understand the principle.
But it takes huge faith to believe in creation, because it wasn't and can never be observed.
And something else bothers me with creationism, that is if God designed every species, why do a lot of them go extinct? Is God too stupid to design creatures that survive?