Posted on 10/28/2009 7:34:50 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
You leave a lot to ridicule, Ira. Not least of which is your complete inability to provide evidence for darwood’s evo-religious creation myth.
Biology
1 : a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes
2 a : the plant and animal life of a region or environment b : the life processes especially of an organism or group;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biology
Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time, i.e. their evolution. One who studies evolutionary biology is known as an evolutionary biologist, or less frequently evolutionist .
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Evolutionary_biology/
Evolutionary biology is a subfield that I don’t accept as fact. I won’t argue the fact that most biologist accept evolution as fact. However that doesn’t make it a fact.
I agree that it isn’t about seeing it happen. However, operational science is based on things that are observable, repeatable and testable. When you get into historical science, you take evidence in the present and make assumptions about it in the past. This is where our worldview plays a role in our interpretation of the evidence.
You are welcome? Why would I call you names. I enjoy a spirited debate with intelligent individuals. You seem very intelligent for a brain washed Darwin worshipper. ;)
Nothing in that had anything to do with “meaning”, only that so long as monkeys living in trees survive to make more monkeys living in trees - there will be monkeys living up in the trees.
Despite Creationist ignorance, there is no demand that monkeys living up in trees all die off just because a monkey might adapt to living on the ground.
Do you follow this or should I explain it to you again using smaller words?
It is time for you to put up or shut up.
• Variations.
1. Variations exist with in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over”
During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
Selection
7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.
10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
Speciation
11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
Sufficiency
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.
While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.
Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.
That is the same exact post that you sent to me except the put up or shut up part. However, what is very interesting is that I didn’t give any opinions in quotes. I cited two scientific studies/published papers by evolutionists. You haven’t bothered to answer.
And you did not respond to it either...
“And you did not respond to it either...”
I beg to differ.
To: Ira_Louvin
“Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.”
I gave you two links to scientific studies and published papers, not people’s opinion.
I disagree that the evidence we have of speciation, natural selection etc etc etc can be extrapolated back into the past to say that an animal can jump from being a reptile to being a mammal. You have no empirical evidence to prove that it can yet you continue to assert that speciation IS evolution. This is a case in point of how evolutionist USE these terms to bait and switch and confuse people who don’t know better. Speciation is not evolution!
148 posted on 10/29/2009 12:04:40 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3 (Best thing about Cash for Clunkers is that 90% of the Obama bumper stickers are now off the road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I do apologize and stand corrected. You just showed your lack of understanding regarding evolution.
Speciation is a part of the evolutionary theory whether you choose to accept that fact or not.
As far as this entire “historical” science thing how do they ever obtain a convection of a crime with no eye witness?
See, by phrasing it that way, you make it sound like the assumption comes first and the explanations later. It's actually the other way around. Dogs and bears got classified in the same suborder because of physical similarities. If we look at the fossil record, we find old bones that are kinda doglike and kinda bearlike, but no full dogs or full bears; and we find younger bones that look more and more like bears and dogs, but we stop seeing those bear-dogs. Well, let's look at the genetic information--how about that, dogs are more like bears than they are like other carnivores. What could be the explanation for why dogs and bears look alike and are genetically similar and their separate fossil lines go back to a certain point until you find something that looks like both? Maybe that thing is a common ancestor!
You want to wave away that entire process by labeling the result an assumption. It's not. It might be wrong, but it's not just an assumption.
I ASSUME that a bear and a fox have a common Creator and that is why they have similarities.
This time I won't argue with you. That is an assumption. But of course, your assumption is not mutually exclusive with my resasoning.
he ONLY reason I have for wanting to withdraw from the converstian is because you believe that everything an evolutionist says about the past (even millions of years into the past) is gospel truth.
No I don't.
You can’t even admit that your opinion and the opinion of EVERY person causes them to be biased about the information in front of them.
Sure I can. The strength of science is its ability to help people overcome their biases.
“By assigning each group of organisms to a kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species, they can then be uniquely characterized. Their membership in a group tells us about the traits they share with other members of the group, or the traits that make them unique when compared to organisms in groups to which they do not belong.”
http://animals.about.com/od/scientificdisciplines/a/classifyinganim.htm
This is the way animals are classified. The bear and fox part ways when they start to part characteristics. Again the assumption is WHY they share these characteristics. You assume an evolutionary common ancestor. I assume a common creator.
What would someone assume if they found a platypus a million years from now?
You think that I am the only one with bias. It is ironic that your bias keeps you from seeing your bias. I have admitted that my interpretation of the evidence is based on my worldview (bias). When you can do the same when can continue to have an interesting discourse.
You said speciation IS evolution. I realize that speciation has been used to try to give evidence for evolution. I understand evolution quite well. That is the reason that I eventually rejected it.
“As far as this entire “historical” science thing how do they ever obtain a convection of a crime with no eye witness?”
A fresh crime scene is far different for scientific purposes. Why do you think they tape it off and don’t want the scene contaminated?. Any intrusion in the scene can lead to false evidence left there and an incorrect conclusion. However, even with all this caution, incorrect conclusions can still be obtained. A crime can be reconstructed with enough information. How much intrusion upon the scene do you think happens over “millions” of years. ‘
I am not saying that things in the past can’t be studied, I am saying that our worldview directs our conclusions about what we see. Your bias keeps you from admitting this. You want and need to believe that evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. However, alot of reasonable people have studied it and come away with a different conclusion than yours.
It is not a matter of “believing” evolution is a fact, it is a matter of accepting the overwhelming evidence supporting the fact of a common ancestor.
Which for whatever reason you are unable to do.
“supporting the fact of a common ancestor.”
So the evidence SUPPORTS a FACT. You can’t even see your own bias.
I am unable to accept common ancestors as a fact because not only is there not OVERWHELMING evidence there is no evidence only presuppositions.
So what evidence would it take to convince you of a common ancestor?
You are begging the question. Presumably at this point you know that I am a YEC and to answer your question I have to assume that your belief is correct. So first of all, I don’t believe there will ever be any evidence of a common ancestor between two different kinds of animals. That is like asking you, what kind of evidence it would take to convince you of special creation.
I see now where your question came from. Let me rephrase, I rejected the idea of a common ansector because there was no evidence. This led me to my current beliefs. I NOW am a YEC because I believe the evidence we do have is more consistent with that and because of my beliefs that the Bible is clear on the subject. I have admitted my bias. Now I would like to see an evolutionist on these threads that was willing to do the same.
Okay so far...
Again the assumption is WHY they share these characteristics. You assume an evolutionary common ancestor.
No, I don't "assume" one. I accept that as the most sensible explanation for the similarities. And for why bears and foxes are more similar to each other than they are to cats. And for why foxes and dogs are more similar to each other than they are to bears. And for why the classification based on shared physical traits is borne out when comparisons were done on the molecular genetic level.
I assume a common creator.
Who made bears and foxes similar because...? But aside from the fact that "common creator" has no explanatory or predictive power, it's not an alternative explanation to the one I outlined above. Most people who accept common ancestry as the reason bears and foxes are similar also assume a common creator behind it all.
They aren't competing assumptions, for both those reasons. Trying to frame it as a question of competing biases is just a way of waving away the evidence for evolution. Of course you admit your bias--it's a tactic. I haven't asked you for evidence for a common creator, because I know there is none--or rather, there are no constraints on what can be called "evidence" for that assumption. It can't be falsified. its not the same as accepting the ToE, no matter how much you claim it is.
You are biased, you won’t admit it. Like I said nothing further to discuss.
I dunno. Try the smaller words.... If they don't; work, we can always try the bigger ones on for size, later on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.