-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Quick question on evolution
- Thread starter dysert
- Start date
I don't think you and I can proceed with the conversation because we have different definitions of the word "fact".
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
I would agree that he's misusing the term "fact" in the most literal sense. A better statement would be the "the fact that life fits into a nested hierarchy by morphology as predicted by the common descent hypothesis and confirmed by the parallel nested hierarchy produced by DNA analysis."
Upvote
0
Another point, universal common descent is basically the only concept we have that explains the data. Nothing else does. The idea of universal common ancestor(s) is really more of a conclusion based on the data than a theory. Basically nothing else comes anywhere close to fitting the data except common descent.Much better
Nothing in the theory of evolution says that we could not have more than one line of descent but one is all we can find and it does indeed appear to be universal throughout all life on the earth.
A generally accepted definition of "fact" is Gould's:
Stephen Jay Gould
So in that sense, I would accept universal common descent as a scientific "fact". The thing to keep in mind is that in science, nothing is absolute, the possibility of new data coming in that can change the picture has to always be kept open.
Take care,
Dizredux
Upvote
0
You and I have different definitions of the word "interpretation". When I think of an interpretation, I think of someone starting with the evidence and producing a model that is consistent with the observations, and is somehow testable or falsifiable.
Does that describe the creationist "interpretations". Nope. They ignore the evidence. Their attempted explanations run counter to the evidence. Their "interpretations" are neither testable nor falsifiable. They aren't interpretations. They are dogmatic beliefs that are immune to evidence.
Upvote
0
Only the second statement is absolutely true if we're talking in context of the entire span of evolution. It's not simply a case of animal types begetting similar animal types. Animal types evolved to eventually form other animal types. Single celled amoebas eventually became plants became more complex to form fish, which became reptiles etc etc. It's all a process.
Evolution works like this. There is an organism. That organism reproduces. The offspring reproduce. This continues. Somewhere along the line there is a mutation. The mutated organism reproduces. Rinse and repeat. Eventually you end up with several different organisms, results of several mutations of both original and already-mutated forms of the original. This process continues to happen, all the time.
Mutations sometimes cause problems, and mutated forms of an organism die out. Other mutations give evolutionary advantages, so the mutated organism has a higher chance of survival over another mutated organism.
In humans, we see this in sickle cell anaemia, to give just one example. Sickle cell anaemia is a result of a genetic mutation. Some sickle-cell sufferers obviously die. But if a sickle cell sufferer and a non-sickle cell sufferer procreate, there is a 50% chance the child will be born with a single sickle cell gene, meaning the child has a massively increased resistance to the plague that is malaria, and also has no sickle cell symptoms. There is a 25% the child will have sickle cell anaemia full blown, and a 25% chance the child will not have the immunity nor the anaemia. Thus, what you now have is a child who has a 75% probability of not having sickle cell anaemia, a 50% probability of being immune to malaria, and only a 25% probability of having sickle cell anaemia or of having neither immunity nor the anaemia.
In theory, the kids resistant to malaria have far better odds of surviving than kids who aren't resistant, and it's all due to a genetic mutation and reproduction.
That's evolution by natural selection.
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
Okay. So according to you, in what way is it not a fact that life is a nested set?
My position is:
Common ancestor is an undisputed fact based on observations! Namely the observation that life is a nested set and that living being only produces other living being in an unique characteristic ancestral line and in no other way we ever noticed living beings being produced. In other words, living being with kinship always generates nested sets and there is no other way to do it! Hence, if life is a nested set, which it is as an observational fact, then it follows,a s a fact, that life has a common ancestor.
This fact follows by the same principle it follows it is a fact that Pluto rotates around the sun (Even thou it never been observed to do that). Do you deny that Pluto rotates around the sun as well?
Since you said your definition of "facts" is different from mine then it follows you must deny that Pluto rotates around the sun. Do you? If not, why not?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
You could as well had said:
"that Pluto rotates around the sun is basically the only concept we have that explains the data. Nothing else does."
A shorter way to say it is: it is a fact!
There is no point in trying to be elaborate or sophisticated with ignorant creationists that a) need a basic education about what we know in biology and that b) seeks every single semantic opportunity they can to deny facts of biology. Just say it as it is, plain and simple so it cannot be misunderstood in any way:
Common ancestor is an observed fact!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
And I don't think you answered my question, but instead is using the the well known creationists "doge it" technique. Convenient isn't it, because then you do not need to challenges your own assumptions and beliefs... (and that is about how "honest" your OP was... )
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
[serious];65466344 said:
A similar word salad about cubes having squared surfaces is: "the fact that cubes fits into squared holes as predicted by topological hypothesis and confirmed by measuring them with rulers"
Don't you think it is mush easier, and clearer, to say "it is an observed fact that cubes have squared surfaces"?
Secondly, a hypothesis is a theory which has not been confirmed (or refuted) by observations. But we have observation for common decent so it is not a hypothesis. Is this statement unclear or ambiguous in any way for you, or do you need ALL of biology explained before you understand or accept this?
Thirdly, why DNA analysis would be relevant to what I said I do not know, because I never mentioned it. But since you did care to mention it, it suggest you put a special importance to it, why is that?
4th, what do you mean with a " parallel nested hierarchy" ? By the way, I am not talking about hierarchies, but sets... even thou they are the "same" things they are not equal to each others, but isomorphic structures.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Why would finding life somewhere else, evolved or created, have anything to do with life on earth? Sure, however life came to be on that planet would most likely be similar to how it came to be on earth, but not necessarily.
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
Nothing more than the person in question talks nonsense, since it does not exclude that life can be created magically at many places and still have evolved at Earth.
However we know that diversity of life at Earth is not due to a spontaneous creation of "kinds" and that the diversity of life can be fully explained by natural processes, but whether or not life been spontaneous created elsewhere we do not know, but that is extremely unlikely to be the case because nothing we know about indicates that such spontaneous processes of creation ever has existed or even is possible while at the same time all we now of indicates that natural processes can be responsible for abiogenesis and diversity of life.
I mostly agree.
Upvote
0
The crux of the matter is: creationism, big bang and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's just as much speculation in saying the big bang was the result of random processes as saying energy cannot be created or destroyed under our current understanding of physics and so it must have always been there ... but where did it come from? wooo *twilight zone music*
But honestly, time is just another dimension, the result of the expanding universe and so ... if the energy were stationary and compressed to singular density there would be no time as we know it so the concept of 'where did it come from' is irrelevant when 'coming' and 'going' are concepts of motion and time.
Anyways ... it's all very interesting but none of it explains this:
'How could we exist, if we never existed?'
*twilight music plays louder*
Seriously, I haven't got any better answers for how energy came into being than those who think God made it. What I do have, however, is the understanding that evolution is indisputable fact an if God did in fact make the universe, he made the laws of physics to guide it; thus evolution technically CANT be mutually exclusive as opposed to creation when it's viewed from that angle - that God exists.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Elitism stifles an open mind. For instance, hebrew has three terms for the word 'day', one can mean 'age'. Thus, the world made in seven 'ages'. That in itself blows a hole in your theory that a well studied creationist cannot be intelligent, and that such a model of creationism that takes this linguistic factor into account cannot coincide with evolution. Obviously you've not even considered the idea of creation, yet by the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so let me ask you, where did all the energy in the universe come from?
Who is to say that these seven 'ages' do not allow adequate time for physics to play their proverbial part in shaping the universe we live in? If God did indeed create the universe, he MUST have created the laws by which the universe is governed, thus to say God created the universe, but evolution is false, is to assume God did not create the universe with the laws of physics that exists today. THAT notion would be ignorant of science, however my assertions are not.
Don't be so quick to give merit to your own intelligence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
