Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 20 (38651)
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


Mainly for Inquisitor, but anyone else with a definition to provide may do so. I don't plan to be the first.
Keep in mind that langauge is descriptive, not perscriptive: Words describe and refer to meaning, they do not contain it. Therefore, any attempt to supply definitions cannot be intended as a final word about what evolution is or is not, but can only be used to ensure we're all talking about the same thing when we say "evolution".
This may not be good enough for Inquisitor, but we shall see. Who'd like to start?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 5:37 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 5:41 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 4 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 5:51 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 5:58 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 6:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 20 (38652)
05-01-2003 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


I have my hand up.
I think I sort of volunteered for this so I'll start.
Here's a couple of short forms (stolen shamlessly from another forum)
Evolution: The process whereby a species undergoes a mean genetic change in the make up of the species over all; which is simply a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
Evolution Theory: The theory which states that life has - by processes of random chance, natural selection, evolution and other unguided physical processes - gone from some initial simple state to produce by diversification, natural selection, etc. all life forms found currently on (and in) this planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 20 (38656)
05-01-2003 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


Evolution links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 4 of 20 (38657)
05-01-2003 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


Evolution as both Theory and FACT
This one is cribbed from myself elsewhere:
This question was asked:

How can evolution be a fact when the theory itself is not proven? That is the same thing as my saying that you should believe me because my theory is a fact according to my facts.
First you have to know what a "theory" is. And very specifically a scientific theory. It is, as someone says, "not proven". It is an explanation of facts that has undergone a great deal of testing and work and discussion and arguing and assailing and so on and so on. Finally it gets harder and harder to poke holes in the explanation given and it goes from speculation, to hypothosis to theory. These are explanations of how something happens rather than what.
As an example there have been two major scientific theories of gravitation. Newton's and Einstein's. Neither is actually a complete explanation. Both allow for calculations that predict the behavior of things in a gravitational field. Einstein's is more correct than Newton's because it more correctly predicts behavior in some extreme conditions than Newtons' does.
Now, it has turned out that Newton was in some details wrong. It may well be that there are flaws in Einstein's theory too. In fact there almost certainly are.
However, apples still fall from trees. The fact of gravity is still there. It is this fact that both men were trying to explain the behavior of and (to a limited degree) the source of.
The fact of evolution having occured was observed and considered before Darwin's time. Even though there wasn't the much more extensive fossil record we have today there was enough fossil and other evidence to tell observer's that something was going on. The problem then became one of explanation -- how could these observations be there?
Darwin's concept was an explanation of how living things could evolve. It explained what was known at the time and predicted many more things. This is the theory of evolution. It is distinct from the facts. The facts were there when Lamarck put forward his erroneous ideas. The facts are still there after the original "classic" Darwinism has been modified into neo Darwinism. They will still be there when other changes are made.
Things evolved -- fact. How did things evolve -- Darwin's theory of evolution. The single word evolution is used for both a bit carelessly by all sides of the argument. When details are being argued the two have to be separated carefully.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 20 (38660)
05-01-2003 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


Description of the ToE
and finally a description of the theory of evolution.
I use the word description advisedly. You can't "define" a theory. It is too big and complex for that.
Since we are going to discuss the theory of evolution we'll take as given the data that needs this theory to explain. There's a ton of that and you don't seem to want to start that far back.
So the problem that Darwin was faced with is that the living things on earth had changed over time. How could this come about?
He put together two concepts. One is that living things do not reproduce exactly. And from Malthus he realized that in the long run not all thing born will be able to live to reproduce.
Putting these together we realize that there are things which influence which individuals do reproduce. A lot of it will be just dumb luck (the tree did or didn't fall on you) but that averages out in the long run. If individuals are different from each other then sometimes (maybe not often and certainly not all the time) that difference will enable one individual to reproduce and another one not to.
Repeat this with a few billion individuals of different creatures alive at one time and then repeat that some 10s or 100's of millions of times and large differences could result if the environment allowed for the changes to be useful.
That's the basic idea. Darwin needed some mechanism within a living thing that could allow for changes from one generation to the next. He had no idea what it would be.
He emphasied that gradual change could do the job (he may even have said that was the only way it would happen I don't remember)
He developed this idea after looking at a lot of extant living things and seeing the relationship between them. I can't find my copy of "Origin" right now and don't remember if he used any fossil evidence at the time. He was aware of the existance of obviously extinct fossils though. There wasn't all that much available in any case.
This gives the basic theory. Then it had to undergo the beginings of a century and a half of examination and testing against new discoveries.
A couple of huge areas of new information that support the theory are, of course, genetics and many, many more fossils. Both are exactly what the theory needed to underpin it and that it predicted would exist. The details have been filled in with methods that would have been deemed impossible in Darwin's day. Perhaps most noticable accurate, absolute dating of geologic structures. All that Darwin had was relative dating with guesses for the time periods involved.
The genetic information has enabled us to see that relatively rapid changes are possible due to the kind of effects that even a few genetic changes actually have on the phenotype (what the animal looks like). They have also allowed us to see a trace, a hidden record if you will of the changes.
The fossil information has filled in a bunch of transitional forms between major groupings. Amusingly the bird-reptile connection was found very shortly after Darwin finally published. Many more have come along since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 20 (38661)
05-01-2003 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
05-01-2003 5:30 PM


And a bit more
Finally I'll try to add something original.
I'll try to word this all by myself and make it up as I go along. Each of these is intended to be independent.
1)
Evolution is the result you get when you allow something to reproduce with some degree of difference in the "copies" and the "copies" are subjected to some winnowing process.
2)Evolution is the process whereby a "population" of things can be changed by imperfectly copying them and winnowing them.
3)Evoution is the theory describing how living things came to the state they are now by the process of "imperfect" reproduction and differential survival.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 5:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 05-04-2003 10:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 20 (38951)
05-04-2003 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
05-01-2003 6:07 PM


Bump
Uh, Inquisitor is this what you wanted?
Are you still in the middle of reading it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2003 6:07 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-05-2003 1:31 AM NosyNed has not replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7826 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 8 of 20 (38962)
05-05-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
05-04-2003 10:25 PM


Where's Inquisitor
He's probably doing 30 days for practising law without a license.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 05-04-2003 10:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-05-2003 6:03 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6724 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 20 (38977)
05-05-2003 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mister Pamboli
05-05-2003 1:31 AM


Re: Where's Inquisitor
Hey Mr. P,
Appletoast/Ten-sai/Zephan/Inquisitor will ignore any post where he is required to support for his statements. Late last year I managed to get him to argue the definition of evolution with me when he at one point claimed it was rocks to humans. I argued the difference between abiogenesis and evolution with him and then at some point he never responded to my posts again. Similarly, there were several threads dedicated to the definition of evidence and how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence...his only "contribution" to that debate was to repeatedly claim he knows what evidence is and that nobody else does. He has been banned twice under the names Ten-sai and Zephan and my be unable to register. So he will likely troll in the Welcome forum.
A rather nicely written definition of evolution is as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-05-2003 1:31 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Inquisitor, posted 05-05-2003 10:11 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Inquisitor
Guest


Message 10 of 20 (38994)
05-05-2003 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
05-05-2003 6:03 AM


Re: Where's Inquisitor
Greetings Mams!
quote:
Appletoast/Ten-sai/Zephan/Inquisitor will ignore any post where he is required to support for his statements
They were questions I was asking, not statements, unless the statement was made IN RESPONSE TO a bold, unfounded assertion of yours like, e.g., "evolution does not say rocks evolved into people over billions of years." I say evolution most certainly DOES, but we'll get to your definition, supra, in a sec. But anyway, suffice it to say, you are clueless as to what constitutes the responsibilities of one who proposes a bizarre theory and thereafter tries to prove it with evidence (btw, evidence is a LEGAL TERM dumbazz).
Some of you would even have your adversaries define the terms of the elements of that which you wish to prove which sounds like you really don't have a grasp of the subject matter at all. Hence, this thread asking eachother what is evolution. The logical conclusion is, like whatever it is you people think 'evidence' is, there is no generally accepted scientific definition of the same.
Unfortunately, I'm not as gullible as you folks. I don't believe it is scientific to claim rocks turn into living things, YOU DO, and your theory says so too. Therefore, I have to back up nothing, but only probe into whether there is sufficient evidence to back up the bold claims. In short, the entire burden to prove evolution is yours, and your burden also includes answering the challenges to your pet theory. As is seen time and again, when the lights come on, the cockroaches scatter.
quote:
Late last year I managed to get him to argue the definition of evolution with me when he at one point claimed it was rocks to humans. I argued the difference between abiogenesis and evolution with him and then at some point he never responded to my posts again.
Sure you did, Mams. But you never could identify the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution must have a beginning, and your mere opinion and speculation as to the beginning of evolution does not constitute credible evidence, scientific or otherwise. I am aware you don't like discussing the achilles heel of evolution, abiogenesis, simply because it is your weakest argument and implies life descended from molten rocks. Nor do you wish to discuss the starting point of evolution, the first population, since there is no more evidence of the identity of the alleged first population than that of abiogenesis. A no win situtation for you. In truth, you didn't contribute ANYTHING at all of substance, and can't since there is nothing of substance to contribute. Glad you are finally realizing this most important observation.
quote:
Similarly, there were several threads dedicated to the definition of evidence and how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence
Really? I counted only one thread. Embellishments are for your adversaries, and I would advise you to simply, clearly, and concisely stick to the relevant issues lest you fall into the trap of getting off topic and straying away from your proof of evolution.
But you never did SHOW how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence. In fact, I said ALL scientific theories could be demonstrated in the courtroom, except of course evolution. Wonder why that is? You, in turn, suggested that it was due to the difference in scientific evidence and legal evidence. But real scientific evidence fits quite nicely in the courtroom.
Sooooo, would you articulate that difference? Recall that "evidence" is and always will remain a LEGAL term moron. Scientific evidence is the SAME AS LEGAL EVIDENCE in so far as the alleged scientific evidence can be shown to be relevant, probative but not prejudicial, credible, and reliable. Scientific evidence of this nature is what we seek from evolution, is it not? If scientific evidence truly differed from legal evidence, there would be no such thing has FORENSIC EVIDENCE! False dilemma and non-sequitur.
Problem with evolution is defining it and identifying its elements such that, when the elements are proven the theory will be too. So now that you've given us a definition of evolution, what say you are the elements of the proof of evolution? Futuyma painted with a pretty broad brush:
quote:
In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.
Glad Futuyma is intellectually honest. He CLEARLY includes ROCKS in the definition of evolution. Rocks "change", and after about 600 million years of cooling off, they become life. Fits quite nicely in Futuyma's definition.
You are just embarrassed to admit you believe rocks can turn into people over 4.5 billion years. You are too embarrassed to admit you even believe rocks have the capacity to create life. The reason is because such an admission would not be consistent with scientific evidence. Yet, if you don't hold "molten rocks" in the chain of custody of your belief system giving rise to its progeny very shortly thereafter, life, so state. But you would be contradicting your hero, Futuyma.
Anyway, it's been fun to expose you people for the frauds you are, especially Crashfrog who LIED about Phillip Johnson allegedly "spreading falsehoods". Crashy never did get around to quoting Johnson (he'd have to read Johnson first!) and identifying the precise "falsehood" Johnson disseminated, only vaguely stating that a mere argument against philosophical naturalism (what precisely that argument was Crashy took issue with we will never know) was a "falsehood" in his mere "belief". Tip for Crashfrog: You make a terrible liar, and if you are ever called to testify in your defense I would advise you not to as you would quickly lose your case.
Why you evos stand for this poser to defame, slander, and generally lie about the character of an individual without backing up his statements per forum guidelines is beyond me. Crashy tried to weasel out of saying he called Johnson a liar, by stating Johnson was just ignorantly "spreading falsehoods". But if Crashfrog ever got around to actually PROVING his assertion that Johnson "spread falsehooods", we could've addressed whether Johnson knew what he was saying was false. Instead, Crashfrog has become himself that which he despises in others.
Crashfrog will never be reprimanded though, as he is an evolutionist. Reprimands and permanent bans are saved for the most formidable adversaries, like Peter Borger and myself.
So, I'll be shutting off the ligts now, and you cockroaches can come out of your holes again.
Maybe Pambini can enlighten on the difference b/n standards of proof and burdens of proof. He had much trouble with those concepts in the past. But leave it to the layman to always be an authority on legal terms (like evidence), and without me around, you will at least have some legal advice from Pambini, the guy with zero legal training and experience. I wouldn't advise that you actually rely on Pambini's advice when involved in the legal process, but it's fun to pretend the layman is a legal expert if you think it will help your argument. Competence is the key word here in the real world, which Pambini is not.
Oh yeah, and DO make sure you get the last word in...bet your fingers are just a itching for the keyboard right now. Perhaps you could ban me first (?) so as to ensure you get the last word, although this most likely will be my last post.
Don't get too upset about it all either. After all, it's only Science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-05-2003 6:03 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 05-05-2003 10:57 AM You have not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6724 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 20 (38997)
05-05-2003 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Inquisitor
05-05-2003 10:11 AM


Re: Where's Inquisitor
Poor Applehead/Ten-IQ/Zephspam/Inquisi-clueless...did you go off your ritalin today?
A/T/Z/I:
I say evolution most certainly DOES, but we'll get to your definition, supra, in a sec. But anyway, suffice it to say, you are clueless as to what constitutes the responsibilities of one who proposes a bizarre theory and thereafter tries to prove it with evidence (btw, evidence is a LEGAL TERM dumbazz).
M: What you say evolution states is largely irrelevant. You have been both unwilling and unable to define "evidence" as you in your twisted pea brain see it nor have you ever been able to justify why science would use a legal definition of evidence...not to mention why science or scientist would give a crap about legal definitions of anything.
Troll boy:
Some of you would even have your adversaries define the terms of the elements of that which you wish to prove which sounds like you really don't have a grasp of the subject matter at all. Hence, this thread asking eachother what is evolution. The logical conclusion is, like whatever it is you people think 'evidence' is, there is no generally accepted scientific definition of the same.
M: Nope, most of us just want to get a laugh out of whatever lame brained definition you might someday have the intestinal fortitude to post between your rants.
Applesaucehead:
Unfortunately, I'm not as gullible as you folks. I don't believe it is scientific to claim rocks turn into living things, YOU DO, and your theory says so too.
M: Nope, you are not gullible, but unbelievable poorly educated or just plain stupid if this is what you believe.
...and more from Troll:
Therefore, I have to back up nothing, but only probe into whether there is sufficient evidence to back up the bold claims. In short, the entire burden to prove evolution is yours, and your burden also includes answering the challenges to your pet theory. As is seen time and again, when the lights come on, the cockroaches scatter.
M: Actually, when you redefine your oppositions position with pure nonsense out of your feeble science background (which sounds like you copied out of a Flintstone's episode) nobody has such a burden of proof. Since it is only you who claim rocks..and molten rocks no less, to humans the burden of proof is on you to show that this is what biological evolution entails....good luck.
Troll continues:
Sure you did, Mams. But you never could identify the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution must have a beginning, and your mere opinion and speculation as to the beginning of evolution does not constitute credible evidence, scientific or otherwise. I am aware you don't like discussing the achilles heel of evolution, abiogenesis, simply because it is your weakest argument and implies life descended from molten rocks. Nor do you wish to discuss the starting point of evolution, the first population, since there is no more evidence of the identity of the alleged first population than that of abiogenesis. A no win situtation for you. In truth, you didn't contribute ANYTHING at all of substance, and can't since there is nothing of substance to contribute. Glad you are finally realizing this most important observation.
M: Nice revisionism....I clearly defined my points..you bailed out of the argument as soon as you were asked to post a substantive argument to support your claims...since then this is the first time you have responded to one of my posts....but out of interest, why do I have to show the beginning point of evolution to demonstrate that evolution occurs?..this little logical fallacy that you repeat as a mantra is fairly odd.
IQlow:
Really? I counted only one thread. Embellishments are for your adversaries, and I would advise you to simply, clearly, and concisely stick to the relevant issues lest you fall into the trap of getting off topic and straying away from your proof of evolution.
M: Then your mathematical skills are as profoundly deficient as your biology knowledge...the threads addressing your definition of evidence were addressed to your various personalities...
I:
But you never did SHOW how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence. In fact, I said ALL scientific theories could be demonstrated in the courtroom, except of course evolution. Wonder why that is? You, in turn, suggested that it was due to the difference in scientific evidence and legal evidence. But real scientific evidence fits quite nicely in the courtroom.
M: OK hotshot...demonstrate both the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity in a mock court setting here....and while you are at it..demonstrate using legal procedures how genetic imprinting is involved in Prader Willi syndrome....this should be easy for you if ALL scientitfic theories have been demonstrated in the courtroom...
I:
Sooooo, would you articulate that difference? Recall that "evidence" is and always will remain a LEGAL term moron. Scientific evidence is the SAME AS LEGAL EVIDENCE in so far as the alleged scientific evidence can be shown to be relevant, probative but not prejudicial, credible, and reliable. Scientific evidence of this nature is what we seek from evolution, is it not? If scientific evidence truly differed from legal evidence, there would be no such thing has FORENSIC EVIDENCE! False dilemma and non-sequitur.
M: You are truly ignorant. Scientific evidence is tentative, indirect for the most part, and in your entire little list should be relevant and reliable. Prejudicial?...hmmmm...and do you have any clue how forensic science was developed or works? Obviously not...any clue about the population database controversy using microsatellite markers..mtDNA?...nope I did not think so...that forensic evidence became acceptable in a court of law demonstrates the power of science to describe and support a hypothesis...not the power of the court and the ambulance chasers like yourself that populate it.
I: Glad Futuyma is intellectually honest. He CLEARLY includes ROCKS in the definition of evolution. Rocks "change", and after about 600 million years of cooling off, they become life. Fits quite nicely in Futuyma's definition.
M: Yes, Futuyma is intellecually honest...you on the other hand are not since it is clear from his definition his is making a distinction between changes in "rocks" and biological evolution.
I: You are just embarrassed to admit you believe rocks can turn into people over 4.5 billion years. You are too embarrassed to admit you even believe rocks have the capacity to create life. The reason is because such an admission would not be consistent with scientific evidence. Yet, if you don't hold "molten rocks" in the chain of custody of your belief system giving rise to its progeny very shortly thereafter, life, so state. But you would be contradicting your hero, Futuyma.
M: Nope, I am not embarrassed at all. With regard to abiogenesis there are some nice models of how life arose (none of which include molten rocks) but are highly speculative. Once their were self replicating organisms for which the record goes back billions of years, anyone with a non Flintstone education can grasp the basics of how evolution works and continues to work today....in addition, I can study bacterial evolution, including the genetics of adaptation to novel substrates without having to know what the original organism was. This is a strange logical fallacy on your part...or do you claim because I don't know what the alps looked like 2 billion years ago I could never have been at the Zugspitze?
I: Anyway, it's been fun to expose you people for the frauds you are,
M: well, you have certianly exposed yourself as a self important, insecure, not particularly well informed internet troll...but didnt you accuse me a few sentences ago of purposefully going off topic to further my position?
I: especially Crashfrog who LIED about Phillip Johnson allegedly "spreading falsehoods". Crashy never did get around to quoting Johnson (he'd have to read Johnson first!) and identifying the precise "falsehood" Johnson disseminated, only vaguely stating that a mere argument against philosophical naturalism (what precisely that argument was Crashy took issue with we will never know) was a "falsehood" in his mere "belief". Tip for Crashfrog: You make a terrible liar, and if you are ever called to testify in your defense I would advise you not to as you would quickly lose your case.
M: If you were Crashfrogs lawyer I am sure he would lose the case.
...the next part of your rant is directed at crashfrog...
I: Crashfrog will never be reprimanded though, as he is an evolutionist. Reprimands and permanent bans are saved for the most formidable adversaries, like Peter Borger and myself.
M: hmmm a little self important there little boy...you are certainly not a formidable adversary...you have not made a single relevant statement...you also have no clue what Peter Borger was talking about or are you now going to show us all a non-random mutation?...in comparison, Borger was a much more interesting adversary as he actually presented data he believed supported his arguments..he also had a fairly calm disposition and a willingness to debate...you possess none of these qualities...that is why you are a troll...and I disagree with the Admin's decision to ban Borger.
I: So, I'll be shutting off the ligts now, and you cockroaches can come out of your holes again.
M: I think your lights have been off the whole time.
I: Maybe Pambini can enlighten on the difference b/n standards of proof and burdens of proof. He had much trouble with those concepts in the past. But leave it to the layman to always be an authority on legal terms (like evidence), and without me around, you will at least have some legal advice from Pambini, the guy with zero legal training and experience. I wouldn't advise that you actually rely on Pambini's advice when involved in the legal process, but it's fun to pretend the layman is a legal expert if you think it will help your argument. Competence is the key word here in the real world, which Pambini is not.
M: You have not given me any reason to think that you are a legal expert...or an expert at anything. Why not actually address what you specifically find lacking in Pamboli's arguments...unless you cannot?
Ih yeah, and DO make sure you get the last word in...bet your fingers are just a itching for the keyboard right now. Perhaps you could ban me first (?) so as to ensure you get the last word, although this most likely will be my last post.
M: Um..this is an unmoderated forum so you will not likely get banned...and given past experience with you..it is unlikely that this is your last post or the last ID you post under.
I:
Don't get too upset about it all either. After all, it's only Science!
M: Actually, this is a debating forum..but then you obviously have never studied any or done any science so if you think these exchanges are science you should up your medication....
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Inquisitor, posted 05-05-2003 10:11 AM Inquisitor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 05-05-2003 3:35 PM Mammuthus has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 20 (39009)
05-05-2003 11:47 AM


Buzsaw definition of evolution:
1. Evolution is an explanation, compatible with the limits of the human natural mind for observed life and order, to satisfy those who cannot accept the notion that there is, in the universe a dimension of understanding and power above the ability of finite man to comprehend, known as the supernatural.
2. Evolution is a theory contrived by one and believed by most which attempts to explain the observed existence of life and order solely by billions of random/chance happenings and interactions involving things pre-existing for no explicable reason.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2003 2:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 14 by zephyr, posted 05-05-2003 2:51 PM Buzsaw has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1716 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 20 (39018)
05-05-2003 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
05-05-2003 11:47 AM


Evolution is an explanation, compatible with the limits of the human natural mind for observed life and order, to satisfy those who cannot accept the notion that there is, in the universe a dimension of understanding and power above the ability of finite man to comprehend, known as the supernatural.
This is not so much a definition of evolution specifically as it is a definition of science. Science, by definition, precludes the supernatural as an explanation. Which isn't, nessicarily, to ay it doesn't exist - it just can't ever be a scientific explanation. If it were, it would cease to be "supernatural".
Evolution is a theory contrived by one and believed by most which attempts to explain the observed existence of life and order solely by billions of random/chance happenings and interactions involving things pre-existing for no explicable reason.
This is also incorrect. Evolution as a modern theory and model is the result of the efforts of hundreds of scientists. Strictly speaking, evolution as a theory predates Darwin, even. Darwin may have planted the seed for the modern theory but it is by no means his alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 05-05-2003 11:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by zephyr, posted 05-05-2003 4:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

zephyr
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 14 of 20 (39021)
05-05-2003 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
05-05-2003 11:47 AM


There are all sorts of problems with this description. Let me take first crack, before better men arrive and tear it to shreds.
quote:
1. Evolution is an explanation, compatible with the limits of the human natural mind for observed life and order, to satisfy those who cannot accept the notion that there is, in the universe a dimension of understanding and power above the ability of finite man to comprehend, known as the supernatural.
It's a well-known fact that many (possibly a majority) of those who support the theory of evolution believe in or accept the existence of the supernatural, myself and many others here included. This alone invalidates definition #1. Some day you will have to accept that evolution was not invented to take the place of a god.
quote:
2. Evolution is a theory contrived by one
More correctly, it has been developed and refined by thousands over the last 160+ years. Keep an eye out for those details.
quote:
and believed by most
(and just maybe because the evidence overwhelmingly favors it?)
quote:
which attempts to explain the observed existence of life and order solely by billions of random/chance happenings and interactions involving things pre-existing for no explicable reason.
At least you're actually approaching reality here. Still, if you think you've actually described the theory of evolution as it exists anywhere but in your own mind, I'd really like to see where you got your information.
[This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 05-05-2003 11:47 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2003 8:11 PM zephyr has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5208 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 20 (39023)
05-05-2003 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
05-05-2003 10:57 AM


Re: Where's Inquisitor
I hope there's a one liner of the month for May LOL
Poor Applehead/Ten-IQ/Zephspam/Inquisi-clueless...did you go off your ritalin today?
This tickled my funny bone! LOL
It reminded me of a lesson I gave to 30 plus 14 years olds at a high school where 5 of the class were on ritalin.
It was bedlam when I got to the classroom, and only after a few minutes of 'mock anger' did I manage to settle them. Then I said 'Ok, today we are going to look at the Life of Christ' LOL my God. all hell broke loose, mostly from the ritalin 5.
Inquisitor's wee rant is very similar to a kid who has forgot to take his ritalin.
LOL , good one Mammuthus!
Best Wishes
Brian.
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 05-05-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 05-05-2003 10:57 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mammuthus, posted 05-06-2003 4:50 AM Brian 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