Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bradskii" data-source="post: 75900497" data-attributes="member: 412388"><p>Why does this bush business keep coming up? If's like some gotcha moment every time it's mentioned.</p><p></p><p>Look, cladistics is enormously complex. You'd need a decent degree and a lot of study to come to grips with even a small portion of the complexity that is the connection between all life. And most people who really do understand it very well are generally concerned with small portions of the whole.</p><p></p><p>Some people with a limited understanding of the evolutionary process (no names here) need the explanations to be as simple as possible so that they can get a grasp of the concept. So not so long ago, evolution was indicated as some kind of ladder, with unicellular life on the lowest rung and guess who at the top.</p><p></p><p>That might be ok for primary school children (despite it wrongly suggesting that there was only one path from there to here and that we were the ultimate aim). Then people drew cute little diagrams of trees to show the various branches. Simplified to the nth degree, but that was good enough for the general population.</p><p></p><p>But if you ask enough questions and poke around a little, then that simply kid's version of a tree gets a lot more complex. To the point where someone had declared it to be more like a bush than a tree (at which point you jump in and shout 'aha!' as if getting an admission that it's very complex is some sort victory for bible literalists).</p><p></p><p>Except that even calling it a tangled bush is nowhere near close enough to describing the incredibly complexity of what is trying to be shown in a diagrammatic form. You might compare it to a family tree representing everyone who has ever lived. We are all connected in some way. But if you look at yourself and a couple of generations back, it looks like a tree. But go back a hundred generations and it'll look a real mess. More a bush than a tree.</p><p></p><p>Go back a thousand generations and it's just tangled undergrowth. But, and this is the point you fail to grasp, it's all interconnected...</p><p></p><p>So next time you claim 'it's not even a tree - it's a bush', then I will correct you. It's much, much more tangled than you can even imagine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bradskii, post: 75900497, member: 412388"] Why does this bush business keep coming up? If's like some gotcha moment every time it's mentioned. Look, cladistics is enormously complex. You'd need a decent degree and a lot of study to come to grips with even a small portion of the complexity that is the connection between all life. And most people who really do understand it very well are generally concerned with small portions of the whole. Some people with a limited understanding of the evolutionary process (no names here) need the explanations to be as simple as possible so that they can get a grasp of the concept. So not so long ago, evolution was indicated as some kind of ladder, with unicellular life on the lowest rung and guess who at the top. That might be ok for primary school children (despite it wrongly suggesting that there was only one path from there to here and that we were the ultimate aim). Then people drew cute little diagrams of trees to show the various branches. Simplified to the nth degree, but that was good enough for the general population. But if you ask enough questions and poke around a little, then that simply kid's version of a tree gets a lot more complex. To the point where someone had declared it to be more like a bush than a tree (at which point you jump in and shout 'aha!' as if getting an admission that it's very complex is some sort victory for bible literalists). Except that even calling it a tangled bush is nowhere near close enough to describing the incredibly complexity of what is trying to be shown in a diagrammatic form. You might compare it to a family tree representing everyone who has ever lived. We are all connected in some way. But if you look at yourself and a couple of generations back, it looks like a tree. But go back a hundred generations and it'll look a real mess. More a bush than a tree. Go back a thousand generations and it's just tangled undergrowth. But, and this is the point you fail to grasp, it's all interconnected... So next time you claim 'it's not even a tree - it's a bush', then I will correct you. It's much, much more tangled than you can even imagine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution?
Top
Bottom