|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1960 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism!
Practically no one adheres to 'Darwinian gradualism' any more. Please try to catch up to the 1970's.
Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes.
The point being?
And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious!
You are easily amused by false arguments. What is really pathetic is your complete lack of an intersection with modern science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1960 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
If I'm wrong I hope he'll come by and explain his views better.
That would not be typical troll behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
Dredge writes: The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff I don't know what puff is, but it is an accurate description. Every new fossil discovery makes the record a little less incomplete, so science seems to be working properly.
Dredge writes: Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense. Do you have a reference for where he says this? I assume he is talking about discovered fossils when he refers to the fossil record, so obviously we have we have the fossils we have discovered so far. Also obviously, the complete fossil record includes all the discovered fossils and all the undiscovered fossils and all the gaps. The only way Bechly can support his quack theory is by intentionally ignoring evidence.
Dredge writes: Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well! Your quack theory relies on cheery-picking the evidence. They are predicted by paleontological and geological theory. The ToE explains them. You are correct, the Theory of Evolution, cherry picks ALL the evidence, that's the point, to explain ALL the evidence. Dredge writes: That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances. This may be end up being true for some, but as discoveries are made some gaps disappear and sudden appearances turn out not to be sudden after all. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9581 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Faith writes: I don't know how he puts it all together, he just seems to believe in an old earth and to some extent in evolution too. If I'm wrong I hope he'll come by and explain his views better. Well you could ask him to answer this - it's what I've attempted to pull out of his muddle; so far he doesn't seem to want to.
quote: Obviously he doesn't actually believe the alien stuff, he just thinks he's being clever substituting his god for aliens. Not understanding, of course, that he's introduced two unidentified and unidentifiable agents which makes whatever argument he thought he had doubly fatuous.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
IIRC Dredge is an OEC
quote: And he has several times referred to "progressive creationism"
quote: Sound familiar? Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Nonsense - "known evolutionary processes" demonstrate nothing more "known evolutionary process". You are conflating wishful thinking and science. there is evidence for macroevolution via known evolutionary processes Actually it has been observed, in the field, and documented in scientific journal. Happened via mutation and selection ... known evolutionary processes, not by mystical alien invisible/undetectable fingers.
sadly - for you - you are (still) wrong again. The changes documented in the fossil record show the pattern of proximity in space/time and in degree of evolution predicted by the ToE, and that are actually seen and documented in living species today: this is sufficient to say they are explained by the ToE. This what validation looks like.
Oh, and I suppose all those gaps and sudden appearances in the fossil record are predicted by ToE as well! Your quack theory relies on cheery-picking the evidence. Gaps were predicted by Darwin. "Sudden appearance" would be at the end of a gap, of course, and they were also well explained by Punctuated Equilibrium, something Darwin had also discussed.
Curiously, missing information is not contradictory.
The "incomplete fossil record" excuse is running out of puff - Gunter Bechly considers the fossil record to be "saturated" - meaning, we have enough fossil evidence now to conclude that the record is complete in a general sense. That is to say, the gaps and sudden appearances will always be gaps and sudden appearances. Curiously, the record IS rather complete "in a general sense" ... meaning that in spite of the "gaps and sudden appearances" currently in the record, we know enough of the general process from LUCA to now to get the general picture of the diversity of life over the natural history of the planet. We also know that new finds will more likely fill in the gaps than present contrary evidence. That's because of the high confidence level scientists have with the ToE being the best explanation available at this time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.7
|
Dredge writes: Thousands of people have claimed to have seen UFOs And amazingly they are still unidentified.
Dredge writes: on the other hand, ZERO people have claimed to have seen macroevolution. Well, except for all the scientists who have documented speciation occurring, which is how science defines macroevolution.
Dredge writes: fossils show that macroevolution has occurred, but fossils don't tell us HOW it occurred. Maybe not, but evidence from other branches of science do tell us how evolution occurs, so as more evidence is discovered we we can understand more and more about how it occurred in the past.
Dredge writes: Your Darwinist explanation is merely one possible explanation ... which is supported by fossil evidence, but isn't CONFIRMED by fossil evidence. Our evolutionary theory is the only one that explains all the evidence in a scientifically consistent way. And while you may not accept that the conclusion that life may have descended from one or more common ancestors has a practical use in "applied science" it turns out, as is often the case, that technologies and techniques developed from one field find useful applications in many other fields.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Yeah, right ... and this is why Gould described the fossil record as an "embarrassment" to Darwinian gradualism! And curiously, (micro)evolutionary change is still what the evidence shows But not to evolution in general. Even Darwin rejected universal gradualism. There is evidence of gradualism in the forminafera fossil record, and there is evidence of more rapid evolution and stasis (eg punk eek) in the fossil record. All known evolutionary processes.
Not even the reptile-jaw to mammalian-inner-ear fossil sequence demonstrates microevolutionary changes. Wrong.
And apparently insects appearing out of nowhere demonstrates microevolutionary changes - hilarious! Except they did not appear "out of nowhere" ... That's 3 wrongs in 3 sentences. You really appear to know not that you know naught about this topic. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1960 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
IIRC Dredge is an OEC
Apparently, Dredge thinks the earth is billions of years old but humans have only been around for 10ky. This strikes me as a bit of cognitive dissonance and cherry-picking of the Bible. In post 556, Dredge comments that the Bible is historical and that the reported genealogies are valid. It struck me at that time that perhaps Dredge believes the earth to be something 'more than 10ky' in age, which would hardly qualify him as a legitimate old earther. But we may never really know, considering the cryptic and sometimes contradictory nature of his posts.
Always good to try to understand what you are arguing against.
Good luck on that. I don't know if we can assume that someone is trying to make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
We should start a new designation. Young/Old Earth Creationist (YOEC).
The vocalization of which would come out as yokel. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18650 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
That would be funnier if I were laughing at *them* instead of examining myself. For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18650 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.3 |
I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it.
By the same standard, I respect the contrarian views of the educated members here at EvC and thank them for their patience, humility, and willingness to share what they know with many of us who don't. Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: That really depends on what you mean by “Creationism”. As the idea is usually understood the evidence is very much against it. Creationism started by endorsing fixity of species - which was reasonable for a long time, before fossils were recognised as the remains of living creatures. Historical evidence did not show signs of change. Egyptian tomb art, for instance - and their animal mummies showed recognisable species. Artificial selection could modify form, but it did not create new species. Creationism carried on endorsing that for a long time, even after the fossil evidence was understood. But that changed in more recent decades. Granted the reason for that change was the realisation that there were too many species to fit on Noah’s Ark - but still it is significant that they endorsed evolution as the answer. Even now Faith is extremely uncomfortable with that and wished that creationists wouldn’t admit it. However, that raises a question. Granted that evolution works to the level of producing species and genera can it go even further ? The evidence does not reveal any convenient boundaries or limits that would restrict evolution to the Creationist “kinds”. The evidence for evolution does cross the assumed boundaries - the taxonomic “tree of life” is a single tree, not a collection of little shrubs. Even if we reject the “transitional fossil” label for the more descriptive “anatomical intermediate” we do have many such fossils and they do support the idea of evolutionary transitions. Genetic evidence, too, points to common ancestry beyond the level where creationists would be happy. It seems unreasonable, then, to treat that sort of creationism as a scientifically or even intellectually valid point of view. The “kind” concept lacks even any theological validation beyond “solving” the problem of room in the Ark. Why then, should anyone other than those apologists who find it necessary to answer the Ark problem consider it at all likely to be true ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 1062: ... For the record, I consider myself only as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that the universe was created by a supreme intelligence. Beyond that I have no belief. ... Becoming Deist? Christian Deist?
... Biblical creationism never made much logical sense to me, but I dont reject it 100% due to the fact that so many people whom I otherwise respect DO in fact believe it.
Message 1063: I always enjoy reading these arguments, assertions, and litany of facts presented here at EvC by our science-qualified members. Just as I don't reject Biblical Creationism wholesale only because I know quite a few who believe it. Logical fallacy of popularity, ie not a valid reason. Seems more like reluctance to me.
Evolution vs Creationism is hardly a black and white issue. I surmise that in fact both could be operating in principle at the same time. I was told (by Mr Jack IIRC) that I was by definition a creationist when I first visited here, because I believe god/s created the universe, so that really opens up a spectrum of creationism versus "Biblical Creationism" (young, old, etc), ID etc.
The Evidence Screams For Validation It really doesn't matter to me what one believes, as long as it is both logically consistent and consistent with the available evidence. Belief in a young earth is patently/provably false (Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1), as is belief in an actual world wide global flood.
Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024