The Doctor Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 So, to avoid derailing that thread, this once more (Can't be bothered to pull up the old thread). No offence Col, I just wanted to use your 'I always said that' catchphrase I don't recall that! What I think must have happened is that you mistook what was said. That is pehaps my fault for lacking sophistication in getting a point across. Or it could be the routine Darwinists failing to look at contrary evidencitis bug. When I say evolution I'm specifically meaning Darwinian evolution or the morphing of one animal into another - land mammals to whales, or apes to humans for example - and common descent. You certainly didn't take anyone apart on the matter, and neither has any scientist. By showing evidence of variation, mutations or selection you are by no means proving Darwinian evolution. I thought I'd made it clear that I know variation, selection and mutations are observable. What is also observable are the limits to which these processes work. A dog will always be a dog, and a bug will always be a bug and so on. All I took from the last debate was you pulling out old disproved 'facts' like the Miller Urey experiment and other evolution textbook 'facts' that are still in the textbooks despite being outdated theories - such as the trees of life shown in textbooks that support Darwinism, which modern biology and paleontology are disproving. The phylogenetic and molecular trees are not pointing to common descent at all, although I suspect it will be a while before the new evidence is allowed to be discussed by the Academy, because the Darwinist faith utterly depends on such outdated evidence. You say you will happily crush me on the subject again - have a crack if you like. No, what happened was you spouted out traditional creatard nonsense, and I corrected you (you ignored it, as is traditional of creatards, never admit when you're wrong, but all the same)... Are you being deliberately ignorant of evolution, or do you just not understand? Evolution doesn't say a fish becomes a human in the way that creationists suggest - Our (very distant) ancestors were fish, but it works like those old puzzles where you'd change one letter to get the next one, e.g. Thin > chin > coin > corn > core > come > dome > Dime Paper > piper > pipes > piles > pills > Bills Write > trite > trice > trick > thick > chick > Check Each change is minimal, but over a long period of time those changes accumulate to make much bigger changes. You mention showing evidence of variation, selection and mutations - that is evolution. Evolution is, at it's simplest, change over time. Don't confuse it with speciation: Speciation is a form of evolution, but evolution is far simpler than that. As for evidence of speciation - we've observed it time and time again: Sticklebacks are a good example, as is the London Underground Mosquito. The whole a dog will always be a dog sort of stuff - this is a massive misunderstanding. Evolution doesn't work like in Pokemon, A small snake like thing doesn't suddenly become a dragon - it's a gradual change sort of thing. Each change adds up (and is directly observable) to give the massive changes (which are inferrable through genetics and the fossil record). I think how creationists have described it is Micro vs Macro evolution? The idea that small changes can happen but an ape-like creature can't become a human. They're the same thing, just over longer periods of time. The best comparison I've seen is micro-ageing vs macro-ageing: You'll see a 5 year old become a 6 year old, a 6yo become a 7yo - a 69yo become a 70yo, but you'll never see a 5 year old become a 70 year old. The child goes through each individual stage (aged 6, aged 7, aged 8...aged 68, aged 69, aged 70) but not straight from 5 to 70. It's the same with evolution - it'll go from species to a slightly different species, and over time progress from ape-like creature to anatomically modern human. Common descent is well proven, Phylogenetics can track us back to fish, but going more recently we can work off genetics of animals, our fossil records and physiological & behavioural similarities to put together a conclusive human ancestry. Look at this selection of fossils: See how each one is only slightly different from the previous one, but all those changes add up over time? That's evolution, that's part of the fossil record that has helped us chart our ancestry. I'll have mentioned the Millery-urey experiment in passing because it's a typical misunderstanding (I blame Kent Hovind that sub-human ****) that evolution says how life began, untrue - that's the field of abiogenesis (which incidentally I'm set to do my dissertation on) - evolution is simply about variations within life at the moment, it follows on from abiogenesis after the formation of the first life forms (basic contained self-replicating RNA's - i.e. very primitive cells) but it's not an evidence for evolution because it's on a completely different topic. As a final point - modern biology and palentology don't prove the trees of life wrong, they just add to them - they're over-simplified, not wrong. The basis is there, it's just the details that are being corrected.
MooseBreath Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Pretty sure I saw Steve McLaren and everyone involved at Derby age about fifty years in the space of two hours last Friday night. How's that for a bag of onions.
l444ry Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Purely in the interest of debate, Doctor, What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
Charl91 Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 How can we possibly come from Monkeys? My Dad aint no monkey, and my grandad aint no monkey!
Harry - LCFC Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 "Evolution doesn't work like in Pokemon" Surprisingly good statement to make despite the humour within it
Vacamion Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 To be fair, Doctor, Empty/Boney also appears to be a holocast denier (see the "Am I wasting my time?" thread) as well as an evolution denier. Fun though it is to watch you trounce his superstition and conspiracies with reason, you could always just wince and back away, rather than attempt to engage him... it's not like you are ever going to persuade him.
Buce Posted 15 January 2014 Posted 15 January 2014 When my daughter was five, I tried explaining evolution to her: she listened patiently, thought awhile, then asked, "so.... was Grandad a monkey when he was young then?"
Rincewind Posted 15 January 2014 Posted 15 January 2014 When my daughter was five, I tried explaining evolution to her: she listened patiently, thought awhile, then asked, "so.... was Grandad a monkey when he was young then?" That is why in days gone by, pre Brian Cox etc, God did it was the best answer to give. Raining = angels crying. Thunder = angels moving furniture.. I like the word game explaination further up the page. I know science is more complex than 'God did it' but it encourages more questions which can not be a bad thing for a young mind as well as old. We have reasoning built into our minds. Why not use it?
Buce Posted 15 January 2014 Posted 15 January 2014 That is why in days gone by, pre Brian Cox etc, God did it was the best answer to give. Raining = angels crying. Thunder = angels moving furniture.. I like the word game explaination further up the page. I know science is more complex than 'God did it' but it encourages more questions which can not be a bad thing for a young mind as well as old. We have reasoning built into our minds. Why not use it? I believe that if a child is old enough to ask a question, then they are old enough to receive a proper answer, albeit tailored to their level of understanding.
The Doctor Posted 15 January 2014 Author Posted 15 January 2014 Purely in the interest of debate, Doctor, What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory? The oft quoted example is a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian. Fossils of anatomically modern animals found deep in history (i.e. earlier than would be possible) would be good evidence against. Other things would be, for instance, showing that phenotypic changes from mutations weren't inheritable or that changed phenotypes wouldn't confer much (if any) advantage in survival - show that adaptations aren't inheritable and the foundations of evolution would be destroyed.
Alf Bentley Posted 15 January 2014 Posted 15 January 2014 Pretty sure I saw Steve McLaren and everyone involved at Derby age about fifty years in the space of two hours last Friday night. How's that for a bag of onions. McLaren did indeed look shocked (I accidentally wrote "schocked" there!) and devastated by his Friday night experience....let's hope the Derby players feel the same and it sends their team spiraling down the league table.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.