|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
People get confused about the meaning of “random” in this context. We had one poster here who got it wrong and accused scientists of gross dishonesty over it. (Creationists love accusing others and hate admitting fault). There are biases in the process and some people think that means “non-random” (although that’s wrong too).
Undirected is better. Maybe it needs expanding to deal with complications - but then you get into explaining stuff like the SOS response
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: You got a sequence, as you asked. And it’s evidence for the “processes governing the descent of one life form another”. The sequence is a sequence of different species - different life forms.
quote: Quite simply. The fossil record is nowhere near complete on the scale of individuals, but as we go up the taxonomic tree it becomes more complete. Intermediates between species are very rare, but intermediates between larger taxonomic groups are less so. That said, there are significant biases in the fossil record, so some parts are more complete than others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: We cannot claim that this is a record of direct descent - the fossil record is not complete at the level of species. However, we see this pattern of similar species - a temporal pattern of change. The species from later times are different from those from earlier times. Evolution is the best explanation we have for such patterns - and indeed most creationists would agree that at least part of it was due to evolutionary change. Thus it is evidence for evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: Then I guess you didn’t understand even the quoted part. It’s not just reused “materials” - it’s the pattern of “reuse”.
quote: The quoted material gives strong evidence that it happened. That, added to the evidence that change over time can and does occur as expected seems good enough. We have a very strong pattern. We have processes expected to produce the pattern. Surely we can reasonably extrapolate the processes to say that they did produce the pattern. (And note, of course that we do have intermediate forms for many steps. For instance tiktaalik and Ichthyostega) For comparison, nobody has directly observed Pluto make a complete orbit of the Sun, but I don’t think that anyone can reasonably deny that we can extrapolate its orbit forwards and backwards - and conclude that Pluto has completed many orbits and will complete many more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: So where does the extrapolation cease to be valid and why? Have you actually investigated the nature of the similarities? Are you familiar with the evidence of ERVs? Or the structure of Cytochrome C ? Or are you making suppositions?
quote: It is a fact that genetics provides considerable evidence for common ancestry. That is not supposition. Are you happy for that to be taught?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: That looks like supposition to me. At best. Can you back it up? Neither of the messages you cite has any real support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: That is not really an answer. All you tell me is that you reject the extrapolation for no good reason.
quote: And what exactly qualifies you to pronounce on what the evidence points to when you haven’t even looked at it or learned enough to understand it?
quote: Indeed it is the strength of the evidence that determines it. And that is why we can confidently say that - with minor caveats concerning the very earliest life - common ancestry is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: You imply that creationists have the right to determine the conclusions that scientists have a right to reach. That scientists are somehow in the wrong for reaching conclusions creationists object to. It would be better to say that common ancestry is the concept that puts the supporters of creationism at “such stark, sometimes virulent odds with” science. Edited by Admin, : Fix what looks like an autocorrect error: "Tom" => "to"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: And you’ve been referred to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and complained that you couldn’t understand it. If your complaint is that you won’t look for the evidence and don’t know enough to evaluate it then the problem would seem to be with you. It’s hardly a basis for alleging that “a large-scale misrepresentation is being foisted on the public’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: Except that you haven’t presented any basis for it at all. Something must underlay the alleged appearance, but there doesn’t seem to be anything.
quote: But Message 247 - even if it were entirely true - only suggests laymen deferring to expert opinion - and to a consensus of expert opinion at that. The majority of participants here - myself included - are laymen. Only one participant in this thread claims to be a scientist. If all you can point to is the behaviour of non-scientists - and if you can’t even get that right - then there is no actual appearance. So it appears that this is just another example of creationist’s love of making false accusations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: The issue is how does your supposed example relate to the actual claim by Taq?
Message 153
Those are one and the same. The often used p value in science refers to the chances that a random set of data will produce a false positive. In the case of the match between the independent trees of morphology and the sequence of cytochrome c that probability is 1 in 1x10^38.
Wouldn’t a fair coin produce a “random set of data”? Isn’t the point of what Taq is saying is that there is a significant deviation from chance? How then, can your example be relevant? Perhaps you should take your own advice:
You should rather refrain from making any scientific claims if you don't even understand these basics.
Although I will note that you have a history of ignoring it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: I get it. You’re. Not actually interested in addressing Taq’s claim at all. Either that or you’re just arrogantly dismissing my point without understanding it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: My point is that your argument does not address Taq’s actual point. Obviously you shouldn’t be able to reliably tell random data from random data. So it is your argument that is moot (not “mute” - you can’t even get that right). And that’s why you use arrogant bluster instead of actually addressing the issues I raise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: Evolutionary biology is primarily based on the empirical evidence of common ancestry. Evidence that something has happened is evidence that it can happen. The basic mechanisms are demonstrable in laboratory experiments and you have been given examples. We also have examples of populations currently diverging - the hooded crow and the carrion crow. Or “ring species” like the ensatina salamanders and the larus gulls.
quote: You are asking me to believe that you did not read Message 146, despite replying to it?
quote: The Bible is not a science text. Geocentrists argued much as you do. But everyone - almost - accepts that they were wrong. Also, ask yourself why, Creationists do not replicate the breeding experiment found in Genesis 30:37-42. Surely it would be an easy way to prove that the Bible is superior to science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: The basic processes are mutation and natural selection, and both are demonstrated. The idea that macroevolution requires additional processes is controversial, hardly something to rely on (and I doubt that you know what the suggested processes even are)
quote: That’s far from obviously true. Minor errors in any of the above would seem to be easily accommodated and major errors seem implausible. Perhaps you consider Young Earth Creationism to be better because it ignores falsifying evidence? Indeed, can you come up with errors in any of the above which might plausibly occur and would suffice to falsify evolution? Edited by PaulK, .
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024