lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Evolution
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-03-2008, 01:39 PM   #81
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
M@RS, if I have to warn you again to keep within the scope of the discussion that you yourself started, then I will have no choice but to temp ban you for blatantly ignoring my warnings.

You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with evolution, then try to cover it up by tossing links left and right with little to no extrapolations and interpretations of your own. If you cannot argue without resorting to such methods, then it would be best if you did not participate at all, especially if you intend to have the links speak for you. The Senate is meant to foster debate between members and I see very little debate coming from you.

Shape up or ship out.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 06:11 PM   #82
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
I was going to end this "converstion" early anyways and I will shape up

Stop posting to say you will shape up and just do it. Posts like this contribute nothing to the discussion.

~9


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.

Last edited by Rogue Nine; 06-03-2008 at 07:20 PM. Reason: Ugh.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 08:09 PM   #83
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
Playing semantic games won't gain you much ground here... Mutations and Defects are the same because the English language has been defined in such a way that they are literally talking about the same thing. If you want to redefine words to fit your preconceived notions then you'll have a hard time communicating with a lot of people.

As for the topic itself: Evolution is a fact. Mountains of evidence that grows everyday and a fossil record that is frequently being filled in make it nigh indisputable.
I am sorry. I was only trying to get to a point across. That point was that everybody has their own truths. But, I guess that that is a little irrelevant to the discussion, so I am sorry.

As for the latter-- Then why isn't evolution a law?

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 08:45 PM   #84
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
I am sorry. I was only trying to get to a point across. That point was that everybody has their own truths. But, I guess that that is a little irrelevant to the discussion, so I am sorry.
Not true. Some things really are objective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
As for the latter-- Then why isn't evolution a law?
Different standards. Generally speaking, scientific Laws can be represented mathematically (i.e. Newton's Laws of Motion), something that cannot be done with an analytic explanation (such as Darwin's Theory of Evolution). Doesn't mean that Laws are better than Theories or that Theories are "less true" than Laws, only that they address different things in different ways.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 08:53 PM   #85
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
Then why isn't evolution a law?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Quote:
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 11:53 PM   #86
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
Quote:
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-03-2008, 11:59 PM   #87
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
If evolution is a fact, why is it still called a theory?
Because capital "T" Theory has a specific meaning in science which has completely different meaning than the lower case "t" theory which is used is lay language.

In the scientific method, facts go in one side and Theories come out the other (ideally). Since one is based on the other they are not in competition as you seem to suggest here.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 01:27 AM   #88
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET Warrior View Post
I am a little confused then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Random House College Dictionary
Fact noun.

-the quality of existing or of being real: actuality; truth.

-something known to exist or to have happened.
Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?


I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 01:56 AM   #89
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?
We have. You see it every year when you get your flu vaccination. Once your body knows how to fight off a particular strain of flu, you'll never get it again. So why do you need to be vaccinated every year? Because the virus evolves. Virologists prepare multiple batches of potential vaccination each year based on how they predict the virus may evolve.

Or there's the Nylon eating bacteria which either indicate that some form of bacteria evolved to have an appetite for nylon after it's invention or that god decided to create some at some point. One of these possible explanations is science and the other is not. The one that is science satisfies a prediction made by the Theory of Evolution.

Of course, the only examples that we can observe in our lifetimes happen on this scale because bacteria create new generations much faster than we do.

For larger organisms we rely on paleontology, as outlined in one of my previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?
You're going to make Niner mad again.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 02:00 AM   #90
Mike Windu
Je suis l'agent du chaos.
 
Mike Windu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Stars Hollow
Posts: 3,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
I am a little confused then.


Since we have not actually seen (or at least as far as I know of) this process happen, how do we know 100% that this theory is true?


I have a question though. What about the Shroud of Turin? What exactly do you think about that?
Actually, we have. Microevolution is a very observable concept. Macroevolution is a natural continuation of the evolutionary theory.

Nowhere do we see forms appearing out of thin air.

As for the Shroud, it's offtopic. But my opinion is nothing other than that it's an oddity.




That's the last time I buy anything just because it's furry!

Mike Windu is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 03:33 AM   #91
narfblat
Forumite
 
narfblat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 693
I completely reject both evolution and creationism. I have ultimate personal proof that both are bogus. Here it is- You always have to urinate when your hands get wet! Rejection of evolution: Urinating close to your water source is a biological no-no and would have been a major detriment. Rejection of creationism: The whole thing is just really d@%n inconvenient (like when you are trying to wash the dishes and you are filling the sink but then have to stop to run to the bathroom for a number 1) so God must be jerk which means he isn't all-loving and perfect and therefore doesn't exist.



Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.

Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof. Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism). The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes). Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.


I support "No Child Left Standing"

I have Attention Surplus Disorder.
narfblat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 03:43 AM   #92
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.
Guided evolution (aka theistic evolution) is still evolution

EDIT: actually I'm wrong here. Theistic evolution does not account for random mutation or natural selection, so I guess it wouldn't qualify as "evolution" after all. You can believe in evolution (proper) and god at the same time, but that's probably more like deism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof.
Wrong. Again, this argument is based on a complete lack of understanding of what "Theory" means within the context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism).
My condolences for the quality of education that you received.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes).
Precisely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.

Last edited by Achilles; 06-04-2008 at 04:04 AM.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 05:02 AM   #93
narfblat
Forumite
 
narfblat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 693
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it. If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that). So the only predicted outcome is a very different life-filled rock, but this would not prove that our biosphere is the result of evolution because our outcome was different. Yes that is very circular logic (bordering on mobius), but that is my point. So, if an experiment lacks the power to prove it, then the only other way to prove a theory is through complete observation of the whole process, and since there are no time machines that method is out.

To be proven, a theory must be testable. A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law. We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory. Any good scientist will tell you that. Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub). Or scientists like Stephen Gould (well, he would if he wasn't dead), and the list goes on.

I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.


I support "No Child Left Standing"

I have Attention Surplus Disorder.
narfblat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 11:51 AM   #94
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
Correct, or:
Quote:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.
Fact is that Theory is not synonymous with "hunch" or "guess" as you seem to think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it.
You don't need to concede this because no one has ever stated that it is a Law. But then again, now you seem to be demonstrating a lack of understanding of what a Law is in scientific use (and perhaps a larger lack of understanding about ToE in general).

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that).
No it does not and if you are going to insist that it does, then you are going to need to provide a reputable source to support your assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
To be proven, a theory must be testable.
It must be lots of things, but yes, testable is one of them. The Theory of Evolution has been throughly tested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law.
False. Direct observation is not the only means of testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory.
Gee, if "logic and evidence" don't get to be "proof" than what does?

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Any good scientist will tell you that.
Right except that any good scientist that tells you this knows that Theory means something other than what you think it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub).
What's his name? What did he win the Prize for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.
You're a biologist and yet you don't know the first thing about the scientific method, scientific nomenclature, the theory of evolution, etc?

The lies are starting to pile up, friend. I'd recommend stopping while you are ahead.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 12:44 PM   #95
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
I completely reject both evolution and creationism. I have ultimate personal proof that both are bogus. Here it is- You always have to urinate when your hands get wet! Rejection of evolution: Urinating close to your water source is a biological no-no and would have been a major detriment. Rejection of creationism: The whole thing is just really d@%n inconvenient (like when you are trying to wash the dishes and you are filling the sink but then have to stop to run to the bathroom for a number 1) so God must be jerk which means he isn't all-loving and perfect and therefore doesn't exist.



Actually I combine the two: Evolution happened, but God knew how it would. Maybe nudged it here and there.

Ultimately both are just theories and lack complete proof. Even in my Evolution class at a rather liberal university the professor emphasized that it is a theory, just like intelligent design (closet creationism). The difference is that one is scientific and the other is based on faith (and so one should be taught in science classes and the other in theological classes). Science need not destroy faith, nor faith, science.
Actually Evolution is based on faith because there is only one type of evolution that is observable (micro-evolution) the others you need faith to believe in because they aren't observable if evolution were true we'd still have the Peking man and Lucys still walking around today, why don't we ever see them?


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 12:51 PM   #96
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
Actually Evolution is based on faith because there is only one type of evolution that is observable (micro-evolution) the others you need faith to believe in because they aren't observable if evolution were true we'd still have the Peking man and Lucys still walking around today, why don't we ever see them?
Species go extinct all the time. The ones that are better adapted survive while those that aren't don't. If you're eager to see a organism that did share a recent ancestor with us and is still alive today, go visit a chimpanzee.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 07:09 PM   #97
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
We have. You see it every year when you get your flu vaccination. Once your body knows how to fight off a particular strain of flu, you'll never get it again. So why do you need to be vaccinated every year? Because the virus evolves. Virologists prepare multiple batches of potential vaccination each year based on how they predict the virus may evolve....

<snip>

You're going to make Niner mad again.
Well, I don't get a flu vaccination every year. I haven't gotten one in years. However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?

I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-04-2008, 08:09 PM   #98
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?
Same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.
When used incorrectly, yes it can be (i.e. trying to use carbon-14 dating for something older than 50,000 years will give inconsistent results). That's why scientists tend to use multiple dating methods when trying to determine something's age.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 12:33 AM   #99
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
Well, I don't get a flu vaccination every year. I haven't gotten one in years. However, wouldn't that be a little bit more like adaptation?

I was only saying that Radiocarbon dating can be faulty. Sorry.

I've never gotten one before...

and sure species go extinct but...the links evolved from monkeys and if a batch went extinct then a new batch of them would evolve from monkeys again...


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 12:38 AM   #100
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Same thing.

When used incorrectly, yes it can be (i.e. trying to use carbon-14 dating for something older than 50,000 years will give inconsistent results). That's why scientists tend to use multiple dating methods when trying to determine something's age.
Okay.

Do you think that life was just an accident?

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 01:01 AM   #101
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
and sure species go extinct but...the links evolved from monkeys and if a batch went extinct then a new batch of them would evolve from monkeys again...
Eh...kinda sorta. No species is static. You're trying to picture it as a linear progression and it doesn't exactly work that way.

Suppose you have Species A which eventually splits off Species B. However Species A is still around and changing over time to their environment and eventually splits off Species C as well. At some point, the environment turns sour for Species A and they die off, but Species B and C are still ok. Species B splits off into Species D, and C splits off E. Eventually B dies. Species C, D, and E are okay however D looks very different from C and E and cannot mate with them. Despite their different looks and inability to mate they are related and share a common ancestor (Species A).

Because Species A and B were well adapted to an environment that no longer exists, the surviving Species won't split off in A or B. So they are gone forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev7 View Post
Do you think that life was just an accident?
"Accident" implies that there was a purpose. Since there is no reason to believe there was a purpose, neither can I think it was an "accident".

Do I think that life occurred because of chance? Yes I do. However, I also think that there is a compelling argument that the odds of that chance happening are so good that you could consider it inevitable.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 01:08 AM   #102
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

I conceded that evolution (used interchangably with macroevolution in this post) did likely occur, but I will not concede that it is a law because we lack any ability to prove it. If we had a rock that was identical to earth six billion years ago, and six billion years to run our own experiment, the theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth (butterfly effect, random chance and all that). So the only predicted outcome is a very different life-filled rock, but this would not prove that our biosphere is the result of evolution because our outcome was different. Yes that is very circular logic (bordering on mobius), but that is my point. So, if an experiment lacks the power to prove it, then the only other way to prove a theory is through complete observation of the whole process, and since there are no time machines that method is out.

To be proven, a theory must be testable. A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law. We can offer lots of evidence to support the theory of evolution (vestigal traits, fossil record, etc.), and evolution may be the only logical explanation, but logic and evidence are not proof, so it remains a theory. Any good scientist will tell you that. Scientists like the Nobel Prize winner from my institute of higher learning (you can trash me but don't knock my school bub). Or scientists like Stephen Gould (well, he would if he wasn't dead), and the list goes on.

I am a biologist and I believe in evolution, but ultimately, my response is that just because something is correct, it is a theory until we can prove it, and we lack the ability to do so with the theory of evolution.
There's some confusion here with the word "theory" and its use. The way Achilles has used it is quite similar to Popper's use (you can read a bit about that here). This kind of use is where falsification plays a large role in the usefulness of the theory. The idea that a theory is "true" or "false" is not really in question, which I am already sure you agree on:

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Theory
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
From your post, I imagine you think of a proof of evolution as something that makes evolution necessarily the case (i.e. logically the case-- "Evolution must be the way it is done, there is no other possible way that would fit the facts."). But we don't require any such proof, because science (in Popper's sense) isn't even faintly interested in that kind of thing.

In our kind of parlance, the "truth" (or "proof") of a scientific theory lies in its explanatory ability and predictive capacity, not logical necessity. Einstein's Relativity theory is not, for example, just a theory because we can imagine cases in which it fails to explain phenomena. Rather, it is a scientific theory just because we can imagine those cases!

A scientific law is essentially the same as a scientific theory in terms of its being subject to falsifiability. Again, there's no logical necessity involved here to legitimize our saying that it is a law.

This, of course, means that it's entirely possible for scientific laws (yes, laws!) to be broken, theories dismantled, ideas disproven. Those possibilities go hand in hand with the scientific endeavor. Science describes nature, it does not explain it (i.e. there's no such thing as an "explanation" to be found here-- not to say that we just can't find one, but that anything we could come up with would have no criteria to show that is the correct explanation).


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein

Last edited by Samuel Dravis; 06-05-2008 at 01:36 AM.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 02:42 AM   #103
narfblat
Forumite
 
narfblat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 693
Quote:
You're a biologist and yet you don't know the first thing about the scientific method, scientific nomenclature, the theory of evolution, etc? The lies are starting to pile up, friend.
Wow, you've graduated from gainsaying to insults and character assassination. What a big boy! Let's check your "truthiness."

Quote:
The Theory of Evolution has been throughly tested.
How? We don't have the few billion or even a few million years to run the experiment necessary. And don't say "microevolution." We are talking about macroevolution.

Quote:
False. Direct observation is not the only means of testing.
I never said that it was. I said that theories must be tested. As far as testing, see above.

Quote:
Theory of evolution predicts that the outcome would be very different from our earth...No it does not and if you are going to insist that it does, then you are going to need to provide a reputable source to support your assertion.
Perhaps I should have been more specific that the organisms would be very different. As far as a source, how about basic evolutionary concepts such as genetic drift, migration, variable survivabilty and random mutations. Evolution is as much a collection of 6 billion years of dumb luck as it is a collection of six billion years of natural selection. The effects of random events are a basic tenant of evolutionary theory. Random events can have a huge effect on individuals and populations and therefore change evolutionary history (giant meteor anyone?).

Quote:
Theory is not synonymous with "hunch" or "guess" as you seem to think.
That would be a hypothesis. I said that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for observed phenomena, and I even said that it was correct, not a "hunch."

Quote:
Gee, if "logic and evidence" don't get to be "proof" than what does?
Reproducable, predictable results of experimentation. Thats what the scientific method is all about. (Oh, and alcohol content equal to percentage by volume times two.)

Quote:
What did he win the Prize for?
Gene knockouts. If you can't figure out his name from that, your credentials are more suspect than a balding 44 year-old man offering free gyno exams in the back of his van.


I support "No Child Left Standing"

I have Attention Surplus Disorder.

Last edited by narfblat; 06-05-2008 at 02:59 AM. Reason: clarity (also alcohol grading)
narfblat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 03:20 AM   #104
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
How? We don't have the few billion or even a few million years to run the experiment necessary. And don't say "microevolution." We are talking about macroevolution.
As I stated above (and you appear to concede below) direct observations aren't necessary. You don't need to witness a murder to know that it happened and often you can find out who committed without actually having seen it with your own eyes. Same principles apply here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
I never said that it was. I said that theories must be tested. As far as testing, see above.
Quote:
A theory can come to be accepted because of observations of what we believe to be the result, but logic cannot make a theory a law.
Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Perhaps I should have been more specific that the organisms would be very different.
You're still wrong. The Theory of Evolution doesn't make any predictions about what the organisism look like, whether they will be different, etc.

The ToE states that organisms here on Earth have changed over time and that natural selection favors the organisms that are best adapted to their environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
That would be a hypothesis. I said that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for observed phenomena, and I even said that it was correct, not a "hunch."
"did likely occur" (a mistake that a biologist would not make because they know that it's still occuring) is not the same thing as saying that it is "correct".

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Reproducable results of experimentation.
Yes indeed that is one standard. Being a scientist though, I'm sure that you are familiar with the others, right (like ability to make predictions).

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Gene knockouts.
Which one? Three men shared the prize.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 01:02 PM   #105
narfblat
Forumite
 
narfblat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere else.
Posts: 693
Quote:
You don't need to witness a murder to know that it happened and often you can find out who committed without actually having seen it with your own eyes.
You said that evolution had been "throughly tested," not that the evidence supports it. I agree that evidence supports it. I defy you to show that it has been tested. (Since you knew you were wrong you redirected the question. For shame.)

Quote:
The Theory of Evolution doesn't make any predictions about what the organisism look like
Okay, Evolutionary theory, instead of the Theory of Evolution, predicts that different outcomes are more likely than the same outcome as per the reasons I listed above (genetic drift, etc.) Lets take for example the human PCDH11Y gene. It is responsible for directing the formation of neural pathways. Defects in it may lead to developmental disabilities, especially those related to speech. In all apes it occurs only on the X Chromosome, but in human it occurs on the Y as well. (In human females it escapes X inactivation on the second X-chromosome, but thats not part of this discussion.) This is most likely the result of a single, one-time, crossover event, meaning that all human males are descended from one male ancestor. Examining changes in the PCDH11Y gene vs PCDH11X in apes places the event around the same time as our human ancestors split from chimp ancestors. This gene could have actually been the dividing line. If that random crossover event never occurred (or that one individual did not breed or its descendants did not reach large enough numbers to push the gene to fixation) our evolution would be greatly different. Single random events change the evolution of species.

What I was actually saying though, was that there would be no way for us to test the ToE.

Quote:
Reproducable results of experimentation. Yes indeed that is one standard. Being a scientist though, I'm sure that you are familiar with the others, right (like ability to make predictions).
Yes, that is a standard as well, but it is asinine to say that the ToE makes good predictions about what has already happened. That is the same way that people say that Nostradamus predicted 9/11, Katrina, etc. You can't make predictions ex post facto. In order for a prediction to be good, it must predict something that has not yet happened. You even stated that the ToE doesn't make predictions of outcomes (and I agree, and concede that I should have said evolutionary theory in that post, not the ToE; you were right to correct me on that).

Again, I am stating that we cannot effectively test the ToE.


Quote:
Which one? Three men shared the prize.
In my opinion, the other two were riding on Mario's labcoattails.

Again, I am saying that the Theory of Evolution is correct. I am also again saying that it has not been tested.


I support "No Child Left Standing"

I have Attention Surplus Disorder.
narfblat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2008, 01:26 PM   #106
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
You said that evolution had been "throughly tested," not that the evidence supports it. I agree that evidence supports it. I defy you to show that it has been tested.
Each time a prediction made by the ToE is confirmed, another test has been passed. The discovery of genetics is just the most obvious example of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
This is most likely the result of a single, one-time, crossover event, meaning that all human males are descended from one male ancestor.
I think the more accurate assertion would be that that particular trait could be traced back to a single common male ancestor. However I think this would be a tough sell, considering that the best chance of documenting such a theory would be mitrochondrial DNA which is only passed from mother to daughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
What I was actually saying though, was that there would be no way for us to test the ToE.
And you, again, would be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Yes, that is a standard as well, but it is asinine to say that the ToE makes good predictions about what has already happened.
Prediction: If ToE is true, then researchers should be able to find some way to show how traits are passed from generation to generation.

Result: the discovery of genetics.

Prediction: If the ToE is true, then researchers should be able to find fossil evidence of gradual transitions between species over time.

Result: Countless fossil discoveries that confirm this.

Prediction: If the ToE is true, then organisms should possess vestigal traits.

Result: (just in humans) the tail bone, the appendix, wisdom teeth, etc.

Not quite on par with the Nostradumus parallels you try to draw. But if you'd like to argue your case further then please feel free to present some other argument that explains all of these predictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
In order for a prediction to be good, it must predict something that has not yet happened.
Or not yet discovered/known about.

You mean like when Darwin predicted genetics 70 years before it was discovered? Or when paleontologists predict that they will find a certain transitional species in a particular place in the ground, then they go dig there and find it? Or how about when geneticists predicted that they would find a fused chromosome in the human genome after noticing that the rest of the apes had 22 pairs, but we only had 21 and then found it (chromosome 2)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by narfblat View Post
Again, I am stating that we cannot effectively test the ToE.
<snip>
I am also again saying that it has not been tested.
I hope Mario helps you out with that before you graduate.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-06-2008, 05:07 PM   #107
Anthony
Thats it.
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 1,734
Current Game: Life
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?
I believe in evolution because to me, it appears to be the far more logical theory. If I were scared there might be a god my opinion would be much like yours; believing otherwise.

As for your general views and basis of argument, I think you should be pretty ashamed of yourself as a christian for using your religion as a weapon. This "scared there might be a god?" crap is ridiculous. But I won't go off topic.

Disclaimer: I read only up to the quoted post.


Anthony is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-07-2008, 12:56 PM   #108
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
I'm a fellow Christian (one who believes Evolution was God's tool) and I have but three things to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
why do you believe in evolution? scared there might be a god?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
YES! humans lie all of the time how do you know you weren't lied to Achilles?
Now I understand the reason that Achilles gets so worked up over this subject. A lot of what you've said in this thread makes my eye twitch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS
And if you think I'm not worth this argument then look up Eric Hovand, he is worth it and he is where I learned all of why evolution is a joke...
Hovand? Good source. No bias at all, there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
Mankind sinned and not everything is perfect anymore and besides humans have things in them that they could live without, like kidney's
Humans can't live without kidneys. Talk to someone with renal failure if you disagree. Thanks.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-07-2008, 06:18 PM   #109
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
You can live with only one kidney, I was trying to say that I guess I forgot to say one kidney, oops, and Anthony I'm not using my religion as a weapon, Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-07-2008, 10:24 PM   #110
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.
I never shy away from an opportunity to help educate others.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2008, 12:36 PM   #111
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M@RS View Post
You can live with only one kidney, I was trying to say that I guess I forgot to say one kidney, oops, and Anthony I'm not using my religion as a weapon, Achilles caught me off guard, I didn't really expect someone to answer back I thought this forum was dead... I was really wrong.
So you posted because you thought no one would respond? What was the point then? I'm not sure I follow your logic. One might guess that you were actually looking to have a discussion because you started a thread in a discussion forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
I never shy away from an opportunity to help educate others.
You? Shy away?



_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 04:25 PM   #112
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Link to full story
Quote:
WASHINGTON - Scientists unearthed a skull of the most primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history, which should help them better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land.

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.
Funny that such a thing would even exist if creationism/intelligent design were true. Oddly enough, ToE predicts the existence of such fossils. Hmm....
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 05:28 PM   #113
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(.)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
clearly they sinned against the Lord and He punished them justly



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 05:55 PM   #114
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
On one hand, it makes me happy to hear that these ancient tetrapods were granted enough free will to violate the wishes of Our Lord. On the other hand, I'm very sad that they choose not to adhere to the Word of God that they would have obviously had in their ancient tetrapod bibles.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 05:58 PM   #115
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
This was probably a scam, it wouldn't be the first time...


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 06:07 PM   #116
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
"Probably" a scam? Your reasoning, sir?
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 06:10 PM   #117
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
It wouldn't be the first time...and I won't be surprised if it is a scam, I can think of two scams off of the top of my head...


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 06:15 PM   #118
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Does the fact that human beings have been struck by lightning during the day mean that you will "probably" be struck by lightning today?

You're welcome to make whatever baseless accusations you would like, however if you would like to enjoy being taken seriously, you might want to consider aiming just a tad bit higher with your arguments.

P.S. Those "scams" were uncovered by scientists. You don't get to have it both ways.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 06:17 PM   #119
M@RS
The New Tax Collector
 
M@RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Thailand
Posts: 1,898
By the way, what's a fatwa? Just curious, and Evolution is still a theory...


Looks like a fruit cake to me. - Brutus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.
M@RS is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2008, 06:26 PM   #120
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Why don't you google it? Yes, the Theory of Evolution is still a scientific Theory.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Evolution

Tags
house megathread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.