Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Than you don't actually believe in evolution."
--Evolution = Change through time. Or would you rather prefer a change of allele frequencies over time. Either way, as I too find no difficulty with accepting this, is accepting evolution.

​

--Edit - With your edited addition of "What you believe in is a creationist's cartoon version of evolution." It is obvious that as I explained above, this is not a 'creationist's cartoon', dispite how much you may desire that it be the contrary.

​

---

You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?

"You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?"
--Those are Tranquilities words. I explained to you what evolution is in my last post. The 'accepted and accredited version of Evolution' you speak of is not mere 'evolution' but is the 'biological theory of evolution' or something more specific along that line.------------------

See my edit of http://EvC Forum: Is Evolution Intellectually Viable? -->EvC Forum: Is Evolution Intellectually Viable? (a few posts ago).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?"
--Those are Tranquilities words. I explained to you what evolution is in my last post. The 'accepted and accredited version of Evolution' you speak of is not mere 'evolution' but is the 'biological theory of evolution' or something more specific along that line.

​

---

When I speak of evolution I mean all parts of it, not just the narrow definition creationists try to pin on it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My so-called cartoon version of evolution is the evoltuion supported by the data! Allelic substitutions, gene duplictions, deletions etc etc. Adaptaiton of genes to the environemtn. Sure. It's all fact.

​

Did a functioning human genome arrive this way in the first place? That's not fact and I don't accept that sort of evolution as proven.

​

---

Please define functioning in this context. They never claimed that the human genome appeared whole and complete as it is now.
The question isn't which came first; the chicken or the egg, but what laid the egg. A chicken-like creature?

^ We are claiming the genomes arrived all completed. They were not the same as they are now but they were complete and working (better). A genome for each kind.Does the data support this? Yes as per hundreds of discussion on this site. Does the data prove it? No.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-05-2002]

Argumentum ad Harun Yahya

[delete cloned msg][This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 11-05-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

Can anyone tell me the fallacy he is using here?

---

Well.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Does it sound logical or reasonable

---

This could be construed as loading the question as phrasing like this in English subtly imply the answer.It could also borders on being an appeal to emotion when coupled with the above gentle inferences, since no one wants to be illogical or unreasonable.

quote:

---

(when not even a single chance-formed protein can exist)

---

assuming the consequent: ie, introducing the conclusion as one of the premises. [quote][b]that millions of such proteins combined in an order to produce the cell of a living thing;[/quote][/b]argument from incredulity -- kinda-of a theme for the post really.

quote:

---

and that billions of cells managed to form

---

Straw man. The word managed implies a kind of will and/or intent.

quote:

---

and then came together by chance to produce living things;

---

Oversimplification of the process. Chance is involved but there are MANY other factors as well, which make the process not as chancie as creationists like to think.

quote:

---

and that from them generated fish; and that those that passed to land turned into reptiles, birds, and that this is how all the millions of different species (including us) on earth were formed?

---

More misrepresentation.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ We are claiming the genomes arrived all completed. They were not the same as they are now but they were complete and working (better). A genome for each kind.

​

Does the data support this? Yes as per hundreds of discussion on this site. Does the data prove it? No.

​

---

What you're basically saying is that GODDIDIT and we just continued on from there. It is like that recent house discussion. Since the house appears to be complete it must have always been as it is now. What I'm saying is that it could have been a single room mudhut in its distant past and not the mansion it is now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ We are claiming the genomes arrived all completed. They were not the same as they are now but they were complete and working (better). A genome for each kind.

---

If this were the case, it would be damned obvious in the data. Despite your assertions, you have yet to make a tenable case.

"When I speak of evolution I mean all parts of it, not just the narrow definition creationists try to pin on it."
--Evolution is as I said it is above. This is not the 'narrow definition creationists try to pin on it' but the definition included in my available biology text-books.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"When I speak of evolution I mean all parts of it, not just the narrow definition creationists try to pin on it."
--Evolution is as I said it is above. This is not the 'narrow definition creationists try to pin on it' but the definition included in my available biology text-books.

​

---

"Molecules to man" is not the ToE. Evolution deals with the adaptations of populations to their environments. This excludes the 'molecules' part, which is dealt with by those studying abiogenesis. TC is correct, though the fuzzy line between the two is disconcerting. Funny, it is much more comon for creationists to want to mix the two fields.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

"Molecules to man" is not the ToE. Evolution deals with the adaptations of populations to their environments. This excludes the 'molecules' part, which is dealt with by those studying abiogenesis. TC is correct, though the fuzzy line between the two is disconcerting. Funny, it is much more comon for creationists to want to mix the two fields."
--While this is also correct, the differentiation nos & me are tumbling over was evolution vs. the theory of evolution (which in its semantic self would not be adequate, though the use of the wording 'theory of evolution' has come to be known as evolution over geologic time.) 'evolution' simply implies change over time, or in biology a change in allele frequencies over time. the word used singularly does not have a given period of time by which phylogenies may be expanded by inherited mutation.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--While this is also correct, the differentiation nos & me are tumbling over was evolution vs. the theory of evolution (which in its semantic self would not be adequate, though the use of the wording 'theory of evolution' has come to be known as evolution over geologic time.) 'evolution' simply implies change over time, or in biology a change in allele frequencies over time. the word used singularly does not have a given period of time by which phylogenies may be expanded by inherited mutation.

​

---

hmmm.... back in post #17 Nos said some things that made me believe that 'molecules to man' was the topic. Sorry... I'll shut-up now.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com