evolution, Darwin, religion, other musings

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by EmptyForceOfChi, Jul 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    hmmm....and the difference is?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Fundamental.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Saquist, im wondering if you understand how evolution works at all...
    From your postings here i figure you dont have a clue.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Thank you. The name of this website is SCI Forums, not Bible Forums. It is intended to be a place for scientists, future scientists, and people interested in science. The scientific method is to be respected in all discussions of science. Even in discussions of history, politics, food, music and dating, a modicum of scientific scholarship is to be observed and the scientific method must at the very least not be flouted except in jest.

    People who wish to debate validity of the scientific method, the principles and findings of science are welcome to do so in the appropriate subforum, generally Free Thoughts, Philosophy or GS&T, but they'd better be prepared with some well-honed debating skills. The scientific principle that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation will apply. Specifically: to the current example of someone who can't even describe the mechanism of evolution coherently, yet asserts that it is wrong. Perhaps it is, and scientists always welcome having their errors corrected, but the burden of proof is on the gainsayer.

    People who want to talk about their favorite brand of religion have a couple of subforums set aside for their own camaraderie. The moderators take a very dim view of trolling, which is to pop up like a whack-a-mole in scientific discussions and spuriously inject off-topic material such as religious fundamentalism. As has already been stated, the vast majority of the world's religious bodies have found the concept of God working through evolution not to be at odds with their faith.

    Anyone who is not a member of that mainstream will find no place here except in the least scientific of our subforums. This is not a U.S. government agency and we therefore have no Constitutional obligation to practice Freedom of Religion, to the absurd extent that Evolution Denialism is treated as a rational viewpoint.
    You do not understand the subject matter. Your statement makes no sense, but it is certainly no definition of evolution.
    Again, a statement that makes no sense and is also not a definition of evolution.
    This is simply false. Evolutionary biology covers the entire paradigm from kingdom to subspecies. David Attenborough's TV production from 20 or 25 years ago, "Life on Earth," was made for people with your level of scientific education and it did a very good job of explaining how entire phyla evolved from one another. It's readily available on DVD. In the plant kingdom we've got good dates for the appearance of the first angiosperms and the first gymnosperms. In the animal kingdom, within the vertebrate phylum, we've got the origin of each of the five classes, one from the other, sorted out.

    No one's asking you to actually become a scientist and do primary research. Few of us here fall into that category. But the least you can do is to treat this gathering with respect. Please do some diligent quaternary research into authoritative, popularized descriptions of the topics you wish to discuss, in order to acquire a layman's or student's command of its vocabulary and logic. This is something you do not now have. To put it bluntly in order to ensure that my point is understood, much of what you say is utterly incoherent.
     
  8. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Fraggle. Thanks.
    Amen to all that!
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Assiduously implicit yet lacking in explicity.
    Why is this the most common course of deduction for the scientific community? Why is there an abundandt lack of fact concerning evolution? Surely these are not the tools of the Scientific Method!

    Patten notes that the basis for Darwin’s theory was three fold: Lyell’s uniformitarianism ,Lamarack’s proposition of inheritance of acquired characteristics, and Darwin’s own geographical observation of fauna and flora. Lyell’s uniforitarianism allowed for time in inexhaustible quantities (or so it seem).

    Darwin seemed to have close ties with Charles Lyell, who set up the geologic time scale by supplying time in the multiplied millions of years. Lyell was also opposed to the catastrophic doctrine of Earth history

    Lamarck’s proposition allowed for specie reorganization and translation termed transmutation. Darwin’s travel brought the fauna of Africa South America, Australia and etc. into the arena.

    Here in Larmarckian thought processes was the biochemical mechanism for change. But there was a modest amount of contradictory opinion.

    Agassiz, Pasteur, Mendel. Henry Howorth, Hugh Miller and Isaac Newton. All there objections dismissed.
    Yes! Some of the most established minds of the scientific community objected on the same basis.

    They all saw the same thing. There was no biochemical mechanism and to date there still is no sign that one will ever be found. You're right it does make absolutely no sense to follow the theory of evolution.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    O.m.g...... :crazy:
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    "The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is now seen to stand on a series of assumptions, but that is not all; there are two tautologies. The first states that the ascending fossil order has been caused by evolution, and then, though usually not in the same place, it is said that evolution is shown to be true by the ascending fossil order. This is simply saying the same thing twice and is based on an assumption, because the same fossil evidence could be interpreted in terms of a catastrophe taking place over a short period of time. The second tautology is Wallace's revelation concerning the key to the mechanism of evolution. Darwin had sought in vain for it for more than twenty years, and then it all seemed so simple and obvious: natural selection was caused by survival of the fittest. The argument proposed that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring. There are variants on this theme that are discussed learnedly in the esoteric language of science, but when reduced to simple words all are found to be nothing more than circular arguments.

    So much for the principles on which the theory of evolution is founded. It should not be surprising, then, when we find that what was taught as fact yesterday is untrue today. Further, we should not be surprised to learn that there is to this time no agreement on the mechanism for evolution and several quite divergent schools of opinion; this shifting ground is the natural outcome of having a foundation based on assumptions and tautologies."

    http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/TaylorIMMc03.htm
     
  12. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    I truely do not understand this. And there is TONS of evidence for evolution, what exactly are you looking for here? What do you feel is missing?
    No biochemical mechanism for what? Heredity?
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Are you serious?
     
  16. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Q, are you trying to make some sort of argument with that creationist claptrap?
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well.. read your own link..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    that post either assumes that the reader knows so much about the question at hand that no convincing is needed, or it is a disjointed, incomprehensible, rambling.

    Darwin says that since people the world over can't agree on a religion, that the gut feelings at the root of each of those differing opinions seems to fail in speaking towards the truth of divinity.

    And you then suggest that human descent from a common primate ancestor isn't possible, but the unstated question is logical?


    What?
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I'm referencing for Saquist, whose arguments seem to come directly from this site. I thought to post their conclusions and get to the meat of the matter.
     
  20. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Ahhh, ok.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2007
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    First of all i have no interest in the content of the site and was just referring to the image.

    Try this:

    http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/biology-edited/chap12/fig12_2.gif

    All i want to know is could these be non-linked species? Given the enormous diversity among species and the reality of extinction.

    As far as the religious connotations, i was merely pointing out that Darwins own wife reamained steadfast in her belief and his own death and events before it should, at the very least, be considered.

    I dont see why we cannot look at all aspects of this topic.
     
  22. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828

    Because you haven’t a clue as to how the scientific method operates, that’s why.

    Scientific evidence speaks for itself. A person’s religion, their hair colour, their wife’s opinions, their place of birth, their place of burial, their brand of tobacco, their hat size or any other biographical info that you are fixated on is all utterly irrelevant to the scientific validity of the ToE. The ToE would be no less valid if Jack The Ripper had been the original proponent.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, all species are linked eventually.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page