Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 91 of 1429 (894467)
05-17-2022 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tanypteryx
05-15-2022 3:09 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Tanypteryx writes:
Well, if they did, you would just say they weren’t doing it properly anyway.
Sort of ... I would say whatever fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up are meaningless because they can't be tested. Anyone can talk.
If someone claimed to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote, for example, I would accept their explanation when they actually produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote.
Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals.
Darwinist scientists claim that the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.
These scientists also claim that, because they understand the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf, they therefore understand the evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.
But give the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and they wouldn't have the foggiest; they wouldn't even know how to get to first base. That proves they don't know how life evolved over deep time. Their simplistic nineteenth-century theory fails miserably.
Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals.
... and the irony is, none of those achievements required Darwinian theory. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-15-2022 3:09 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by kjsimons, posted 05-17-2022 8:18 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 05-17-2022 9:41 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 94 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2022 1:07 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 95 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-17-2022 7:39 PM Dredge has replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 92 of 1429 (894468)
05-17-2022 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
05-17-2022 5:32 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
To implement the tasks you have assigned the scientist could take a million years and need a laboratory the size of the planet. So, no they aren't going to easily do that, but it doesn't mean they don't have a grasp on how evolution works. It appears that you haven't a clue though thinking that they have to replicate the evolutionary past in the lab to be able to understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2022 5:32 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dredge, posted 05-27-2022 7:34 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 93 of 1429 (894470)
05-17-2022 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
05-17-2022 5:32 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Well, if they did, you would just say they weren’t doing it properly anyway.
Sort of ... I would say whatever fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up are meaningless because they can't be tested. Anyone can talk.
I would say something a little different. I would say that with no thought or analysis you'll use disparaging labels to dismiss any scientific hypotheses that conflict with your philosophy or religion.
For example, consider the hypothesis that the early eukaryotes came about over millions of years by one prokaryote gradually increasingly the degree of absorption of another prokaryote with which it had established a symbiotic relationship. I think that rather than providing us your detailed analysis of the hypothesis while weighing the evidence from all sides, you'd instead call it a fantastic and meaningless explanation produced by vivid imaginations. Why bother exerting any intellectual effort when you can just call something names and be done with it.

I expect you'd also impose impossible and arbitrary criteria, e.g.:
If someone claimed to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote, for example, I would accept their explanation when they actually produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote.
Generalizing this criteria, you'll reject all hypotheses where even though researchers can't duplicate the events they do have substantial evidence of what happened. This means you'll have to reject all hypotheses about things that take thousands of years to happen, because people just don't live long enough to recreate those events (erosion of caverns in limestone rock, movements of closer stars, growth of glaciers across the northern hemisphere). The same is even more true for things that take millions of years (fossilization, sedimentation, lithification, erosion of thousands of feet of rock, formation of fossil fuels, speciation above the unicellular level, migration of the poles, movements of more distant stars, significant changes in the sun, significant climate change, atmospheric compositional changes, movements of continents, formation of planets, stars and galaxies).
And by this criteria you'll be forced to reject as impossible any process that is beyond our means to duplicate, at least at present, or that we have't done yet (sustainable fusion, travel by light sail, manned travel to another planet, volcanos, earthquakes, swarms of locust, rainstorms, tsunamis, black holes).
Recreating the events behind a hypothesis before accepting it is absurd and not the way anyone actually thinks, not even you. It's just the cockamamie idea you're stuck on because you don't have any actual reasons for rejecting what the evidence clearly shows. There are plenty of things we can figure out from the evidence that we can't actually do ourselves or see firsthand, and the general outline of the origin of eukaryotes is one of the things about which we've figured out a substantial amount and have a number of viable hypotheses.
But give the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and they wouldn't have the foggiest; they wouldn't even know how to get to first base. That proves they don't know how life evolved over deep time. Their simplistic nineteenth-century theory fails miserably.
Actually, they have far better than the foggiest. They have clearly constructed hypotheses. What they don't have is enough time to actually duplicate such processes because the hypotheses say that these things took millions of years. They can only examine the available evidence and hypothesize from that how events transpired.
Perhaps you or some of your friends have requested a genealogical analysis that provides a rough outline of your racial history. Can you reproduce that history? No? Then how can you believe it ever happened?
Or consider your own family history. You can't duplicate what is in the written records documenting that history, so how do you be sure it ever happened?
In sum, your criteria are absurd. Imagine if prosecutors were required to recreate the alleged events before a jury could accept that they happened. That's ridiculous. No reasonable person thinks it's necessary to duplicate what the evidence says happened in order to accept it. What everyone does, including you, is present the evidence supporting what you think happened. And if you approach the gathering, analysis and presentation of that evidence scientifically, then you should have a pretty strong case. And the people hearing your evidence should give it sincere and careful consideration, not just make derogatory comments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2022 5:32 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dredge, posted 05-27-2022 7:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(5)
Message 94 of 1429 (894482)
05-17-2022 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
05-17-2022 5:32 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Well, if they did, you would just say they weren’t doing it properly anyway.
Sort of ... I would say whatever fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up are meaningless because they can't be tested. Anyone can talk.
I didn't say anything about "fantastic explanations their vivid imaginations dream up." I said if they did your "assignment", you would say they did it wrong.
Dredge writes:
Anyone can talk.
Yes that is true, and you have convinced us that you never know what you are talking about.
Dredge writes:
If someone claimed to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote, for example, I would accept their explanation when they actually produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote.
Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"?
Can you explain why "someone" would want to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"?
Do you think anyone would care about producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote, to "prove evolution" to a bunch of creationists?
Scientists already have studied most of the processes involved, so they don't need convincing, and none of them care about whatever fantastic explanations YOUR vivid imaginations dream up.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals.
Darwinist scientists claim that the evolutionary process that allows a dog to be produced from a wolf is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.
Can you give us some examples of "Darwinist scientists"? I know a lot of scientists who study evolutionary biology and I have never heard a single one refer to themselves as "Darwinist scientists".
Your assertion is incorrect, scientists do not claim the process that produced dogs from wolves is the same evolutionary process that produced the history and diversification of life on earth.
Dogs were artificially selected and bred for domestication, not evolved. Some of the processes are the same, mutations, genetics reproduction, etc., because they are biological organisms.
Dredge writes:
But give the evolutionary scientists of the world the task of producing a eukaryote from a prokaryote ... or an amphibian from a fish ... or a reptile from an amphibian ... and they wouldn't have the foggiest; they wouldn't even know how to get to first base.
Repeating your silly task still does not make it valid.
What possible purpose would anyone see in wasting their time on that? Evolutionary scientists spend their lives studying the evidence that exists right now.
Every single shred of evidence discovered so far supports the observation that life is evolving and is the result of billions of years of evolution.
Dredge writes:
That proves they don't know how life evolved over deep time. Their simplistic nineteenth-century theory fails miserably.
Well, since it is demonstrably incorrect, it proves you don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe you are unaware, but this is 2022, not 1859, and what we have learned since 1859 fills libraries and museums around the planet and it all supports evolution.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Humans have spent the past 10,000 years or more, turning wolves into poodles and thousands of other species into tens of thousands of varieties of domestic plants and animals.
... and the irony is, none of those achievements required Darwinian theory. LOL
The true irony is that you are completely unaware that domesticating and breeding all those plants and animals gave us incredible insights and knowledge into the biology of all organisms and how they have evolved and are evolving.
You have it ass-backwards, the knowledge gained from breeding and other studies lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet. Now we can apply that knowledge.

Edited by Tanypteryx, .

Edited by Tanypteryx, .


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2022 5:32 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2022 11:01 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 99 by Dredge, posted 05-27-2022 12:58 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 1429 (894500)
05-17-2022 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dredge
05-17-2022 5:32 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
drudge writes:
If someone claimed to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote, for example, I would accept their explanation when they actually produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote.
What do you think of this research from an article in Genengnews (Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News) titled 'Microbes Engineered to Model Endosymbiosis'? Not quite prokaryote to eukaryote, but getting closer every day. You're still finding yourself wedged painfully in that god/gap thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dredge, posted 05-17-2022 5:32 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2022 10:18 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 96 of 1429 (894693)
05-26-2022 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by AnswersInGenitals
05-17-2022 7:39 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
They can research and theorize and talk all they like, but until someone actually produces a eurkaryote from a prokaryote, they can't claim to know how that evolution happened.
Abiogenesis science faces the same problem: Until someone actually produces a viable organism from inanimate matter, no one can claim to know how abiogenesis occurred ... all the research and theorizing and talk in the world is irrelevant.
Scientists can't even demonstrate that eurkaryotes did in fact
evolve from prokaryotes, much less know how it happened.

Edited by Dredge, .

Edited by Dredge, .

Edited by Dredge, .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-17-2022 7:39 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 05-27-2022 8:10 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 126 by Stile, posted 05-31-2022 10:18 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 97 of 1429 (894696)
05-26-2022 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tanypteryx
05-17-2022 1:07 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Tanypteryx writes:
Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"?
No ... but plenty claim to know how evolution works.
This seems like a logical conclusion to me:
If someone knows a lot about micro-evolution but doesn't know a thing about how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded, that person can't claim to know how evolution works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2022 1:07 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-26-2022 11:48 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 05-27-2022 8:20 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(4)
Message 98 of 1429 (894697)
05-26-2022 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dredge
05-26-2022 11:01 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"?
No ... but plenty claim to know how evolution works.
Two completely different things then.
And I claim to know how evolution works.
dredge writes:
This seems like a logical conclusion to me:
And that's why no one is asking you to do any science. I will be sure and let my colleagues know to ignore the "dredge rule."
If someone knows a lot about micro-evolution but doesn't know a thing about how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded, that person can't claim to know how evolution works.
Well, that's the interesting thing, any good biologist and certainly every paleontologist understands the processes of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record.
It is microevolution all the way through the transition. There is no separate process of macroevolution. Every evolutionary biologist knows this.
The people who cannot claim to know how evolution works are you creationists.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2022 11:01 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2022 9:32 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 109 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2022 9:42 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 99 of 1429 (894700)
05-27-2022 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tanypteryx
05-17-2022 1:07 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Tanypteryx writes:
Scientists already have studied most of the processes involved, so they don't need convincing
These are probably the same scientists who claim to know how evolution works, but couldn't describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record even got to first base.
Repeating your ***** task still does not make it valid.
What I think is "*****" is claiming to know how evolution works without being to describe even the first step of any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record. (***** = s-i-l-l-y)
Every single shred of evidence discovered so far supports the observation that life is evolving and is the result of billions of years of evolution.
I'm not disputing that. I accept the scientifc evidence that suggests life on earth has been evolving over perhaps billions of years.
Maybe you are unaware, but this is 2022, not 1859, and what we have learned since 1859 fills libraries and museums around the planet and it all supports evolution.
... and yet science is as incapable of describing how macro-transitions in the fossil record proceeded as it was in 1859. In other words, science still doesn't know how evolution works.
the knowledge gained from breeding and other studies lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet
I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth. But as for knowing how evolution produced life on earth, that cannot ever be known ... which means no one can ever claim to know how evolution works.

Edited by Dredge, .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-17-2022 1:07 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-27-2022 1:46 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 101 by AZPaul3, posted 05-27-2022 3:02 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 100 of 1429 (894704)
05-27-2022 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dredge
05-27-2022 12:58 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Scientists already have studied most of the processes involved, so they don't need convincing
These are probably the same scientists who claim to know how evolution works, but couldn't describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record even got to first base.
Well, they're probably the ones who have been studying evolutionary processes. They realize that there is really no separate process of evolution called macroevolution, so they describe all evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Repeating your silly task still does not make it valid.
What I think is "silly" is claiming to know how evolution works without being to describe even the first step of any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.
Yes that would be silly, but it turns out they realize that there is really no separate process of evolution called macroevolution, so they describe all evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Maybe you are unaware, but this is 2022, not 1859, and what we have learned since 1859 fills libraries and museums around the planet and it all supports evolution.
... and yet science is as incapable of describing how macro-transitions in the fossil record proceeded as it was in 1859. In other words, science still doesn't know how evolution works.
If you read the journals you would find that science describes the process of evolution as microevolution.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
the knowledge gained from breeding and other studies lead to the conclusion that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for the variety of life on this planet
I accept that Darwinian evolution is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth. But as for knowing how evolution produced life on earth, that cannot ever be known ... which means no one can ever claim to know how evolution works.
Sorry Sherlock, science and scientists are defying your orders and have already discovered your forbidden knowledge and are forcing Jesus into narrower and narrower gaps.
Macroevolution is just a figment, evolution is just microevolution, forever and ever.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dredge, posted 05-27-2022 12:58 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dredge, posted 05-29-2022 9:56 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 101 of 1429 (894705)
05-27-2022 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dredge
05-27-2022 12:58 AM


Dredge Doesn't Think
These are probably the same scientists who claim to know how evolution works, but couldn't describe how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record even got to first base.
This is one of the things you keep missing. You conveniently overlook the facts.
Yes, we know how macro-evolution works. We can describe in detail how macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record got to first base and then rounded to home. First base is micro-evolution. In fact all the bases are micro-evolution. Can you really be so mind-numbing dumb you can’t see how the accumulation of small incremental changes leads to large differences?
When growing up did you record, document, each millimeter of your micro growth? Of course not. You didn’t even notice. But after years of this incremental change what you do see is that you finally reach over 5 feet. A macro achievement. Congratulations, Shorty.
Mother Nature can be a bit shy when she is courted. You have to give her micro-evolution. Lots and lots of micro-evolution. Give Gaia enough micro-evolution and she will give you a new species, even a new genus, in return.
Your inability to comprehend that macro is nothing more than the accumulation of micro is another symptom of your deep mental deficiencies that listens to illusion and shows you visions of specters, phantasms of your disturbed mind. Seek professional psychiatric help before you get “that” message in your head and you go off to kill a bunch of kids in a school.
But as for knowing how evolution produced life on earth, that cannot ever be known ... which means no one can ever claim to know how evolution works.
Evolution did not produce the initial life system of this planet. It did, however, produce the full range and abundance of life that presently exists and it did that using the life system developed by abiogenesis.
In none of this is there any kind of god. Again the demented human mind conjures its fantasies. You hear the voices of your invisible masters and see the visions of ghosts giving you dire warnings. You are one sick puppy. Register with the police and for god sake stay away from guns.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dredge, posted 05-27-2022 12:58 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dredge, posted 05-30-2022 3:59 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 102 of 1429 (894708)
05-27-2022 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by kjsimons
05-17-2022 8:18 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
 
kjsimons writes:
To implement the tasks you have assigned the scientist could take a million years and need a laboratory the size of the planet. So, no they aren't going to easily do that, but it doesn't mean they don't have a grasp on how evolution works. It appears that you haven't a clue though thinking that they have to replicate the evolutionary past in the lab to be able to understand it.
The task I mentioned is quite obviously impossible ... just as it's impossible to understand - know - how a macro-evolutionary transition that occurred millions of years ago progressed.
No one can possily know what steps were involved, let alone know how evolutionary mechanisms produced those steps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by kjsimons, posted 05-17-2022 8:18 AM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 05-27-2022 8:31 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 103 of 1429 (894709)
05-27-2022 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Percy
05-17-2022 9:41 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
 
Percy writes:
I'd say something a little different. I would say that with no thought or analysis you'll use disparaging labels to dismiss any scientific hypotheses that conflict with your philosophy or religion.
Percy writes:
I would say something a little different. I would say that with no thought or analysis you'll use disparaging labels to dismiss any scientific hypotheses that conflict with your philosophy or religion.
My philosophy and religion have nothing to do with my argument. Moreover, I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has evolved over perhaps billions of years.
But as for knowing how it evolved ... well, that's clearly impossible.
For example, consider the hypothesis that the early eukaryotes came about over millions of years by one prokaryote gradually increasingly the degree of absorption of another prokaryote with which it had established a symbiotic relationship.
The only way to know how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes is to take a prokaryote and produce an eukaryote from it ... which is obviously impossible. Therefore it's impossible to ever know how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.
Scientists can't even demonstrate that eukaryotes did in fact evolve from prokaryotes, much less know how it happened.
Actually, they have far better than the foggiest. They have clearly constructed hypotheses.
Big deal. Forming a hypothesis is not the same as knowing ... not even close.
It's impossible to know what steps were involved in any macro-transition that occurred millions of years ago, much less know how evolutionary mechanisms produced those steps.
"dark" evolution is what I call it. Feel free to use that term in future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Percy, posted 05-17-2022 9:41 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 05-27-2022 9:01 AM Dredge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 1429 (894710)
05-27-2022 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dredge
05-26-2022 10:18 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
They can research and theorize and talk all they like, but until someone actually produces a eukaryote from a prokaryote, they can't claim to know how that evolution happened.
So I guess until someone produces a hurricane from a low pressure system over the Atlantic, no one can claim to know hurricanes happened. Or until someone erodes a canyon a mile deep, no one can claim to know the Grand Canyon happened. Or until someone pushes up a mountain range miles high, no one can claim to know maintains happened. Or until someone places a planet in orbit around the sun, no one can claim to know planets in orbits happened. Or until someone produces a bird naturally no one can claim to know birds happened.
Repeating your stupid premise over and over and over again (I get to call it stupid because instead of addressing all the reasoned explanations for why your premise is wrong, you just keep repeating it again and again) just forces people to address you with ridicule and derision. You're ignoring reason, and so there's no alternative.
Abiogenesis science faces the same problem: Until someone actually produces a viable organism from inanimate matter, no one can claim to know how abiogenesis occurred ... all the research and theorizing and talk in the world is irrelevant.
Well there's a non sequitur. First, abiogenesis and evolution are two separate topics, which you've been told multiple times. Second, no one in science claims to know how abiogenesis occurred. There are a number of hypotheses, but no one actually knows or claims to know. The only thing science asserts with certainty about abiogenesis is that it occurred through natural processes.
Scientists can't even demonstrate that eurkaryotes did in fact evolve from prokaryotes, much less know how it happened.
As you've already been told, science doesn't know eukaryotes evolved, and science does not assert that they could only have evolved from prokaryotes. There are a number of hypotheses, one being that they were the result of a symbiotic relationship between prokaryotes.
Again, this has been explained before. Ignoring the explanations and forcing people to repeat themselves just invites ridicule. You're behaving like a real ignoramus. Please engage with what people are telling you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2022 10:18 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 105 of 1429 (894711)
05-27-2022 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dredge
05-26-2022 11:01 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Can you give us any examples of "someone" claiming they know how to "produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote"?
No ... but plenty claim to know how evolution works.
You're actually admitting to believing that understanding evolution is equivalent to claiming to know how to produce a eukaryote from a prokaryote? How many other dunderheaded things must you have already believed in order to arrive at that incredibly insipid conclusion?
This seems like a logical conclusion to me:
You haven't demonstrated much talent for logical reasoning so far, so I fear what comes next:
If someone knows a lot about micro-evolution but doesn't know a thing about how any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record proceeded, that person can't claim to know how evolution works.
I think you need to explain why this makes sense to you, because it makes no sense to anyone else. I bet you know a lot about how driving works but don't know any of the details of all the trips from New York to LA.
I can't believe your failure in logic hasn't become obvious to you yet. Or maybe you're just so invested in it that you'd rather look a fool than admit you've been wrong all this time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dredge, posted 05-26-2022 11:01 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024