Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 646 of 698 (916419)
03-03-2024 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 645 by PaulK
03-03-2024 8:06 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
quote:
If you read the message I replied to it should be obvious.
Not gonna waste time trying to decipher your coded message containing only slur. It's not too difficult to use quote or just to answer.
quote:
Examples would be pit eyes as found in planaria or the eye of the nautilus.
Pit eyes are fully assembled as well. How is it an intermediate? Do you expect these pit eyes to become more fully formed in the future then? Have any of the nautilus species shown significant change in the assembly of their eyes in the 500 million years of their existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2024 8:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2024 9:13 AM sensei has not replied
 Message 656 by Taq, posted 03-04-2024 11:31 AM sensei has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 647 of 698 (916420)
03-03-2024 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by K.Rose
03-03-2024 6:17 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
K.Rose in Message 637 writes:
Okay, Percy, you got it. Though the eyeball evolution should come over to Faith and Belief with me. Maybe all of evolution, but certainly the eyeball evolution.
That depends. If you'd like to discuss your faith that God created all life, including hearts and livers and eyes, then that belongs in Faith and Belief. But if you'd like to discuss the creationist evidence for an alternative explanation to evolution then that would seem to belong in a science thread.
Maybe not this one, though. This thread's topic about the definition of evolution has already been answered. It's the nature of threads to drift off-topic, but this one seems permanently so now that it's discussing the evidence for evolution. It would be nice if someone would go to the trouble of proposing a new thread.
As I’m sure you’ve gathered my contention is that evolutionary biology, at some point, wanders out of science and into the world of faith. I’m interested in what governs that faith, and also whether there is any room at all in ToE-Abiogenesis-Big Bang, among their adherents, for a supreme being/deity. On to Faith and Belief.
That would be a good topic for the Faith and Belief forum, the extent to which acceptance of the theory of evolution is based upon faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by K.Rose, posted 03-03-2024 6:17 AM K.Rose has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 648 of 698 (916421)
03-03-2024 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by sensei
03-03-2024 8:57 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
quote:
Not gonna waste time trying to decipher your coded message containing only slur
You only have to read one of your messages - that was directly linked. Apparently that’s too much work for you.
quote:
Pit eyes are fully assembled as well. How is it an intermediate?
Because they lack most of the parts - there’s not even an eyeball as such. Just a retina of sorts in a cup. And of course actual intermediates are going to be “fully assembled”.
Likewise the Nautilus has most of the parts but lacks a cornea and a lens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by sensei, posted 03-03-2024 8:57 AM sensei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2024 10:32 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 649 of 698 (916422)
03-03-2024 9:21 AM


Moderator Request
I'm not going to moderate this thread, but I am going to start limiting post counts for those who become personal, starting at 5 posts/day and going down from there.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 650 of 698 (916423)
03-03-2024 9:27 AM


Moderator Action
The daily post count limit for the sensei account has been set to 5.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 651 of 698 (916424)
03-03-2024 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 648 by PaulK
03-03-2024 9:13 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
And of course actual intermediates are going to be “fully assembled”.
Sensei may not understand the reasons the Nautilus eye has remained in this state. He may be thinking evolution requires “improvement” and “advancement” in structure. He may not know that the Nautilus appears to be especially well adapted (fit) to her evolutionary niche.
Her genome appears to replicate quite well, to the point where major changes to her eyes were never advantageous enough to remain in the gene pool. The same reason sensei lost what might have been a useful tail. It wasn’t and its loss from the gene pool is not missed.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2024 9:13 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 652 of 698 (916452)
03-04-2024 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 631 by K.Rose
03-01-2024 8:05 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
K.Rose writes:
At this risk of spinning this discussion out of control, I’ll point out that the term atheist can be something of an abstraction, since it refers to disbelief in a god or some supreme being, and the terms god and supreme being can be stretched to mean something as intangible as a set of moral ideals, to something as concrete as a worship of money, power, any number of vices, but also work, exercise, meditation, hobbies, and yes, natural science.
It is only stretched like that by people who want to misrepresent atheism. Atheism is simply an answer to a question of whether someone believes in a supernatural deity. That's it.
Why and how evolution conflicts with Biblical Creation is quite simple: The Bible teaches God’s Creation of Man, and evolution teaches that man’s existence is happenstance, a more or less random result of descendance from a long line of more primitive creatures.
What you seem to continually miss is the observable facts. What do they say?
You treat the theory of evolution like it is just something that is taught, as if people can just choose to believe in it or not. What you fail to understand is the mountains and mountains of facts demonstrating evolution to be true.
We have a relatively miniscule set of fossils, we have extensive DNA studies that we can throw into the mix, and we can draw some conclusions regarding the similarities between the fossils, then present the data as supporting common ancestry. For the sake of argument we can call this all well and good.
But from there we hypothesize that every living thing on earth evolved from some common, simple, primitive ancestor, a hypothesis for which we have no hard evidence, just extended supposition based on the fossil hypothesis above.
We do have hard evidence for universal common ancestry. We have the universally shared shared metabolic and genetic systems. Stacked on top of this is the fossil record which shows the progression of fossils we would expect to see if all life shared a simple, single celled ancestor. We see the phylogenetic signal in multiple data sets, such as in comparison of shared tRNA sequences.
We can establish common ancestry using DNA. We don't need a single fossil for this conclusion. Fossils are just the icing on the cake.
That’s why we look at the human eye and assume it is evolved from some simple lens over many millennia.
No such thing is assumed. We have evidence. For example, the simple eye found in urochordates.
The eye in the larvae of seq squirts (part of the Urochordate taxon) is a single cell with opsin in it, and it is covered by nothing more than 3 transparent cells. This is found at the base of the vertebrate tree.
Further work on molecular mechanisms has shown how a heat shock protein found in early urochordates gave rise to the crystallin proteins found in modern vertebrate eye lenses.
We have the evidence. It isn't just assumed.
So we can teach schoolkids about fossils, their similarities, and DNA, and call that science, but then we jump into teaching them that everything came to be through evolution and we can call that science, but we are clearly jumping into the natural science worldview and teaching the faith of evolution.
It isn't faith when you have mountains of evidence demonstrating that life shares a common ancestor and evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 631 by K.Rose, posted 03-01-2024 8:05 PM K.Rose has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 653 of 698 (916453)
03-04-2024 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 637 by K.Rose
03-03-2024 6:17 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
K.Rose writes:
Though the eyeball evolution should come over to Faith and Belief with me. Maybe all of evolution, but certainly the eyeball evolution.
Why? Have you even looked into the scientific literature on the evolution of the vertebrate eye? For example:
https://www.frontiersin.org/...0.3389/fcell.2021.602450/full
Urochordate betagamma-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens - PubMed
Evolution of crystallins for a role in the vertebrate eye lens - PMC
Explosive Expansion of βγ-Crystallin Genes in the Ancestral Vertebrate | Journal of Molecular Evolution
Evolutionary Origins of Pax6 Control of Crystallin Genes | Genome Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
There are tons and tons of scientific papers on this very topic.
As I’m sure you’ve gathered my contention is that evolutionary biology, at some point, wanders out of science and into the world of faith.
That's because you refuse to address the facts.
Added in edit:
I'm thinking of using this quote in my signature.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Perhaps it should be called the Darwin-Dunning-Kruger effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 637 by K.Rose, posted 03-03-2024 6:17 AM K.Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2024 1:06 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 654 of 698 (916454)
03-04-2024 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 638 by sensei
03-03-2024 7:24 AM


sensei writes:
Your conclusions are false though.
Such a claim is usually followed by the evidence demonstrating the conclusion is false. Where is that evidence?
We determined that there is correlation, we can agree on that. Your claim that common ancestry is the cause of that correlation beyond any doubt, is just your claim. You failed again and again to scientifically show your method of determining this level of doubt in your claim. The p-values you use, apply to wether there is correlation or not. It does not say anything about the cause of the correlation.
The theory of evolution predicts that this correlation should exist. It is a fulfilled prediction. In science, we call this a supported theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by sensei, posted 03-03-2024 7:24 AM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 655 of 698 (916456)
03-04-2024 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 639 by sensei
03-03-2024 7:34 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei writes:
And this evidence boils down to the same narrative that it is an accumulation of small changes over a long period of time.
The spectrum of differences between genomes (i.e. transitions outnumber transversions) demonstrates that those differences are consistent with the same processes that produce mutations in living species. It isn't a narrative. It is a conclusion drawn from observable facts.
Common ancestry of seperate species is not backed by real science.
I have provided 5 separate tests of common ancestry and evolution in this very thread:

1. A nested hierarchy
2. A specific pattern of transition and transversion mutations.
3. A specific pattern of sequence conservation in introns and exons.
4. Transitional fossils.
5. 200,000 shared Endogenous Retroviruses.
Wookie has been the only one that gave an earnest attempt to address any of this evidence, and he came up woefully short. All you can do is complain about p values. You won't address this evidence either.
Instead, you pretend that these facts don't exist and claim we are pushing a narrative. That's plainly false. We have the science, and you refuse to address it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by sensei, posted 03-03-2024 7:34 AM sensei has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 656 of 698 (916458)
03-04-2024 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by sensei
03-03-2024 8:57 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
sensei writes:
Pit eyes are fully assembled as well.
"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything. Any arrangement of cells would be called "fully assembled".
If a functioning eye is missing many of the parts that creationists claim is needed for a "fully assembled eye" then their argument is meaningless. If your argument is that a fully assembled eye can be nothing more than a photosensitive spot, then what argument are you trying to make?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by sensei, posted 03-03-2024 8:57 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 659 by sensei, posted 04-08-2024 7:03 PM Taq has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9280
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 657 of 698 (916460)
03-04-2024 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by Taq
03-04-2024 11:18 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
But, but, but... Jesus.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by Taq, posted 03-04-2024 11:18 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by sensei, posted 04-08-2024 6:42 PM Theodoric has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 658 of 698 (917468)
04-08-2024 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 657 by Theodoric
03-04-2024 1:06 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
Theodoric:
But, but, but... Jesus.
Typical response from a retard.
Taq:
"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything.
So when PaulK speaks of "the full assemblage of the human eyeball" it is meaningful, but as soon as I use it refer to it, it lost all meaning? Talking about using double standards.
Taq:
I have provided 5 separate tests ...
Taq:
All you can do is complain about p values
If you don't understand p-values, then you don't understand testing. It's as simple as that.
You are also a bad liar now, claiming that all I do is complaining about p values.
I said many things, like I clearly stated about your nested hierarchy, that there is no general rule that a nested hierarchy means that there has to be a common origin. Yet you claim that this has to be the case, and that this is evidence that confirms common ancestry beyond any doubt. Your claim relies on your own made up, wonky rules.
So much for that test.
And then you expect me to waste time on all your other tests, while you understand shit about testing and interpreting p-values to begin with, and the basis of your argument of your first test already fails miserably?
PaulK:
sensei:
What would you consider to be a show-stopping problem? Because I know you already made up your mind. And any problem, you would just brush off and claim that there is mountains of evidence. And this evidence boils down to the same narrative that it is an accumulation of small changes over a long period of time.

Narratives are not evidence. Not to me. If it is to you, then your idea of good science is flawed. Common ancestry of separate species is not backed by real science. It's only wishful thinking.
No you didn’t. Your arrogant bluster failed then and it will fail again.
Again, nowhere in my message, that you directly responded to, did I claim to do something. So what are you referring to, when you say "No you didn't"?
PaulK:
You only have to read one of your messages - that was directly linked. Apparently that’s too much work for you.
See, above. I literally quoted my whole message. I did not do what?
You keep making these kind of nonsense comments and claims and then blame me of not reading when I ask you for clarification.
AZPaul3:
Sensei may not understand the reasons the Nautilus eye has remained in this state. He may be thinking evolution requires “improvement” and “advancement” in structure. He may not know that the Nautilus appears to be especially well adapted (fit) to her evolutionary niche.
Species have supposedly changed and started occupying new niches countless of times. Your excuse of why so many species remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, is just weak.
But you need these kind of excused to bend the data and your predictions and force them to fit a bit closer together. While in reality, evolution theory has poor predictions, not matching the unchanging species at all.
First complex life appeared like little over 2 billion years ago? And you find it reasonable to believe that the nautilus eyes remained unchanged for the most part for roughly a quarter of that time?
You seem to so much want to believe in a theory that goes against observed data. And of course you are free to do so. I'm just looking at the facts and I'm laughing in your faces for believing in your nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 657 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2024 1:06 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by Theodoric, posted 04-08-2024 7:20 PM sensei has not replied
 Message 662 by Taq, posted 04-09-2024 1:10 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 659 of 698 (917469)
04-08-2024 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by Taq
03-04-2024 11:31 AM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
PaulK:
Examples would be pit eyes as found in planaria or the eye of the nautilus. They show that the full assemblage of the human eyeball is not necessary for a functional eye of some sort.
Taq:
"Fully assembled" is just a phrase you made up. It doesn't mean anything.
Yeah sure, I made it up.
This is becoming a recurring theme. You attacking me on semantics, while others use the same semantics before I did.
But you only start having a problem with the phrasing as soon as I use it. Then you try to make it look like I made up something stupid, while I just try to respond to all of you, trying to refer to what you said, using similar language and similar phrasing.
But your arguments turn out to be weak anyway, so no surprise you are reverting to semantics attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by Taq, posted 03-04-2024 11:31 AM Taq has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9280
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 660 of 698 (917470)
04-08-2024 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by sensei
04-08-2024 6:42 PM


Re: Rejection of Common Descent
I think I will just let admin and mods take care of this. As the parent of a developmentally disabled adult I find this extremely offensive. You deserve a multi day suspension at the least.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by sensei, posted 04-08-2024 6:42 PM sensei 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