Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Criticizing neo-Darwinism
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 163 of 309 (403509)
06-03-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by RAZD
06-03-2007 4:08 PM


Re: "That no (new) mammalian order arose ...etc" (standard MartinV Canard)
MartinV is looking for whole new and complete limbs to grow on old trees - something he will never see.
And has never been observed to happen in time past.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2007 4:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2007 6:55 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 168 of 309 (403596)
06-04-2007 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
06-04-2007 7:23 AM


Re: True Darwinism
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact.
I agree.
We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs,
I agree.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (non invalidated) to date.
I agree.
However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question.
How is your faith that because we have this much evidence and that since we are here it had to happen.
Any different from my faith?
That we have all this evidence that you and I believe in. But I believe that God created everything and then all these changes took place.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 7:23 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2007 11:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 170 of 309 (403621)
06-04-2007 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Modulous
06-04-2007 11:48 AM


Re: differing degrees of faith
Hi Modulous, did you read RAZD'S post I was responding to?
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
RAZD says it takes faith but his faith is different from mine.
I wanted to know why he thought his faith was different to mine as I had just agreed with all the evidence he had put forth.
I believe God created everything and is in control. I believe that the hypothesis will be substantiated by fact in the future.
Would you care to explain the difference using RAZD'S definition from Message 167 highlited in yellow.
quote:
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
BTW
Having faith in the supernatural world requires additional faith since there is no testable evidence to lend it any credence.
At present there are 107 tests per minute that proves or disproves God exists. The only problem the one doing the experiment has to die to preform the test. One day you and I will preform that test.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2007 11:48 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 4:04 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 172 of 309 (403682)
06-04-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by RAZD
06-04-2007 4:04 PM


Re: differing degrees of faith
Your belief is without evidence and is unquestioned.
No I cannot see the difference you are questioning my theory now.
We believe the same thing up to a certain point which is fact.
Then you come to the point you have to take the rest by faith hoping that the facts will prove your hypothesis in the future.
I come to the point I have to take the rest by faith hoping that the facts will prove my hypothesis in the future.
Please explain the difference.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 4:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 8:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 174 of 309 (403710)
06-04-2007 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
06-04-2007 8:57 PM


Re: differing degrees of faith
Your evidence is hoped for in the future, my evidence is in the past and what the hypothesis is built on.
RAZD writes:
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
RAZD you state the above in Message 167.
Did you or did you not state you had to have faith to believe it?
A simple yes or no will do.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2007 8:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:28 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 176 of 309 (403818)
06-05-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
06-05-2007 7:28 AM


Re: differing degrees of faith
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Is this your definition of faith from Message 167
(A) religious faith: absolute, not evidence based, not questioned
(B) non-religious faith: tentative, evidence based, questioned
Or is this your definition of faith please make up your mind.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 7:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 10:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 185 of 309 (404771)
06-09-2007 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by RAZD
06-05-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Returning to the topic
This discussion can now continue on topic.
As you know I believe in evolution up to the point of things becoming completely different other things.
I know science is supposed to be based on evidence, and much of evolution is based on evidence.
But it has never been observed or reproduced where one thing becomes a completely different thing, and there are not enough fossils to prove that it has taken place.
Is this the part you beieve has to be taken by scientific faith?
Even your favorite horse chain has been said to be out of order.
http://www.amnh.org/.../Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html?50
The fossil horses aligned from right to left in the front of the display represent the evolution of horses as a steady progression along a single pathway -- until recently a widely held view of evolution. Here the horse is seen to evolve in a neat, predictable line, gradually getting larger, with fewer toes and longer teeth. Those arranged (also from right to left) in the back present a more current scientific view of evolution,
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2007 4:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 6:22 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 187 by molbiogirl, posted 06-09-2007 7:43 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 190 by molbiogirl, posted 06-09-2007 9:17 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2007 7:40 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 188 of 309 (404797)
06-09-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by molbiogirl
06-09-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Returning to the topic
Thus the display in the back shows that some later horses, such as Calippus, are actually smaller than earlier ones, and that other later horses, such as Neohipparion, still had three toes.
RAZD had pointed out several times how this was the neatest progression of evolution and was complete.
There is a picture with the horses lined up smallest to largest.
The latest revelation is that that is not correct and then they line them up as they now know them to be because of new evidence.
I think that says they were out of order.
Then maybe not, you tell me.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by molbiogirl, posted 06-09-2007 7:43 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 06-09-2007 9:08 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 06-10-2007 10:07 AM ICANT 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