RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 5:48:39 PM)

quote:

Mostly to DrMark, but since you seemed to agree with the argument he was using, you can reply if you have anything to say about my response.


I am not sure I made any of those arguments.



Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 7:00:29 PM)

quote:

I am not sure I made any of those arguments.

What you said in post #14 suggested that at the very least, you didn’t understand the point I was making.

But in any case, if you don’t have a problem with it now that I’ve explained it, I guess we’ll just wait and see what DrMark has to say about it.



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 7:14:06 PM)

I've already said my piece and really don't have time to waste on rebuttals to your attacks on logic and terminology. There are numerous real-world benefits of biology, none of which contradict creation science. You've yet to demonstrate any contributions unique to the hypothetical predictions of so-called common descent theory. Linking to articles by scientists who should be intelligent enough to figure out the huge difference between adaptation and UCD is a telling commentary on the current state of evolution as a viable theory!



Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 7:36:26 PM)

quote:

You've yet to demonstrate any contributions unique to the hypothetical predictions of so-called common descent theory.

From my OP:

quote:

By contrast, it will be seen that a phylogenomic view of orthologues extends beyond the usual model organisms to embrace a wider swath of evolutionary history using full PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTIONS and related techniques, all of which are better suited to the determination of function and, most significantly, of changes in function over time (Fig. 1). Similarly, the study of paralogues and pathways in an evolutionary context can provide insights into broader issues of PLEIOTROPY and functional REDUNDANCY that are of particular concern for drug discovery.

Interesting. Either you’re presuming to have something of value to say about the OP without having read it, or you’re choosing to deliberately ignore parts of it. If you’re actually a doctor, I hope you don’t use this way of thinking while making diagnoses.



drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 8:47:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I challenge you to name one aspect of animal husbandry that relies on creation theology.
Not to mention the confidence a breeder has that the offspring will be the same kind as the parent stock and not some "hopeful monster" of the punctuated equilibrium debacle. BTW, it's science we're discussing here, not theology! Unless you've changed your mind about evolution being theology. [;)]

.


This is typical... you might as well defiantly say "Well I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, therefore evolution is wrong!", and pretend you have just scored a point. No evolutionist would predict that one species would give birth to an entirely new species in a single generation.

How bout explaining PE in your own words? From this post I gather you haven't the faintest idea what it is about.



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 8:51:47 PM)

quote:

Interesting. Either you’re presuming to have something of value to say about the OP without having read it, or you’re choosing to deliberately ignore parts of it. If you’re actually a doctor, I hope you don’t use this way of thinking while making diagnoses.
Like I said, nothing here that demonstrates any contributions unique to the hypothetical predictions of so-called common descent theory. And absolutely nothing here that contributes to my success as a competent and compassionate physician!



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 8:59:43 PM)

quote:

This is typical... you might as well defiantly say "Well I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, therefore evolution is wrong!", and pretend you have just scored a point. No evolutionist would predict that one species would give birth to an entirely new species in a single generation.
This is typical...you might as well defiantly say that millions of years of random mutation and natural selection must evolve a monkey into a human because we have no other way to explain it by natural mechanisms. You're losing points, drj - rapidly.



drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 9:11:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

This is typical... you might as well defiantly say "Well I have never seen a monkey give birth to a human, therefore evolution is wrong!", and pretend you have just scored a point. No evolutionist would predict that one species would give birth to an entirely new species in a single generation.
This is typical...you might as well defiantly say that millions of years of random mutation and natural selection must evolve a monkey into a human because we have no other way to explain it by natural mechanisms. You're losing points, drj - rapidly.


Well, how about some scientific arguments for creationism then? Certainly a man of your training can present a few arguments that show some scientific evidence for creationism without relying on simple minded interpretations of biblical passages. I started a thread for that quite a while ago, here, and so far nothing has been presented.



Agahnim -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 9:19:35 PM)

quote:

Like I said, nothing here that demonstrates any contributions unique to the hypothetical predictions of so-called common descent theory. And absolutely nothing here that contributes to my success as a competent and compassionate physician!

Oh, I think I get it. You’re using the same argument that a “common designer” could result in the exact pattern of traits that’s predicted by common descent, apparently even including which animals will have which endogenous retroviruses.

Are you ever going to say anything about the points made in my thread about ERVs? Every time you use this “common designer” claim, or claim that there’s no evidence for common descent, I tell you that your point is refuted in there. And every time I do, or try to bring up the details of it with you, you completely ignore me. You don’t ignore anything else I post; your doing this is completely exclusive to the evidence I cite that contradicts your viewpoint.

This is not a good attitude for a doctor to have. When the evidence contradicts a certain viewpoint, such as that a patient’s diagnosis is something other than what you assumed at first, the responsible thing to do is to look at the new evidence and reconsider your assumption. I can only hope that in your practice you don’t selectively ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions the same way you do here.



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 11:32:42 PM)

quote:

I started a thread for that quite a while ago, here, and so far nothing has been presented.
Really, drj? I counted almost 20 different lines of evidence supporting a young earth. Of course, your interpretation leads you to discount each one out-of-hand. Why should I waste time presenting more data for your faulty worldview to misinterpret?!

quote:

Are you ever going to say anything about the points made in my thread about ERVs?
Probably not, Agahnim. I have grown weary of listening to pompous diatribe from self-professed experts whose naturalisic worldviews blind them to any similance of rational thought regarding alternative explanations for what basically comes down to faith-based philosophy. It's really a shame that we cannot conduct reasoned discussions on these S&O threads without mud-slinging, credentials-bashing, and name-calling. Since I really don't enjoy being dragged down to your level, it seems prudent to take a break for a while and see who's still around in a week or two.



drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/19/2008 11:46:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I started a thread for that quite a while ago, here, and so far nothing has been presented.
Really, drj? I counted almost 20 different lines of evidence supporting a young earth. Of course, your interpretation leads you to discount each one out-of-hand. Why should I waste time presenting more data for your faulty worldview to misinterpret?!


Well, present some credible data, and we'll have a discussion. The style of being lambasted with 20 points all in one post makes for a hard discussion, and I lambasted right back with a site that discredited all of them.. most of which were so utterly ridiculous, it really calls the validity of the entire list into question (like the sun is shrinking example, or the salinity of the oceans etc etc). Most of the list broke the rules for the thread, which was to show evidence for creationism.. None of the claims even did that.. some certainly claimed the earth was much younger than 4.9 billion yrs, but they still pointed to old earth in YEC terms so really wouldn't be evidence for YEC at all. All those points were designed to debunk evolution and the timescales involved, but all of it pointed to a much older earth and universe than YEC predicts. So how bout it? Got any scientific evidence the earth is 6k years old?



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 8:40:11 AM)

quote:

So how bout it? Got any scientific evidence the earth is 6k years old?
There are at least three threads from this year on the subject. I'm sure the moderators would prefer you pick one to revitalize rather than start a new thread. I will not be joining in since there is no evidence that your worldview allows you to interpret as support for YEC.



drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 9:00:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

So how bout it? Got any scientific evidence the earth is 6k years old?
There are at least three threads from this year on the subject. I'm sure the moderators would prefer you pick one to revitalize rather than start a new thread. I will not be joining in since there is no evidence that your worldview allows you to interpret as support for YEC.


That's why I linked the thread here... so it could be resurrected. You may not change my mind, but just think of all the forum lurkers that might be on the fence!



unclemonkey -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 9:32:54 AM)

ORIGINAL:drmark
quote:

BTW, it's science we're discussing here, not theology! Unless you've changed your mind about evolution being theology.

Don’t be too harsh doc. It is simply not possible to discuss evolution without discussing theology.



drj11 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 9:35:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drmark
quote:

BTW, it's science we're discussing here, not theology! Unless you've changed your mind about evolution being theology.

Don’t be too harsh doc. It is simply not possible to discuss evolution without discussing theology.


I still find it fascinating one of the ways creationists love to slander evolution is by calling it 'theology'.



unclemonkey -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 9:43:34 AM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

quote:

Jack:
Sure there are:

God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

Seems like a pretty basic, and verified prediction, confirmed more times than can be counted - and not to mention, depended on those who raise livestock worldwide.

non-sequitur.

That is not at all non-sequitur. It is a valid example of animal husbandry’s reliance on a tried and true prediction of Biblical Creation. An evolutionary prediction would be that after enough time a cattle breeder may end up with something not at all related to cattle.



unclemonkey -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 9:56:21 AM)

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo)

“Micro-evolution” is NOT creationist lingo. An evolutionist coined it. The sole purpose of the terms “micro” and “macro” evolution are to provide a false sense of continuity between simple adaptation and microbe to man evolution. The terms are nothing more than one of evolutionists’ many deceptive word games.

While “micro-evolution” (simple adaptation) is compatible with the creationist worldview “macro-evolution” definitely is NOT.



unclemonkey -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 10:10:35 AM)

ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:

The claim most Christians that also subscribe to the theory of evolution is that evolution is so more accurate than any other proposed explanation.

“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” – Exodus 20:10-11

Somehow I just don’t see evolution as a good explanation for God creating animals “after their kind”, sin BEFORE death or Exodus 20:10-11.
Maybe you could enlighten me?



unclemonkey -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 10:18:20 AM)

ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:

quote:

Don’t be too harsh doc. It is simply not possible to discuss evolution without discussing theology.

I still find it fascinating one of the ways creationists love to slander evolution is by calling it 'theology'.

That’s not slander. Evolution is worldview unsupported by any empirical evidence. Calling it “theology” is actually an unmerited complement. Fairytale is a more fitting term for evolution.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 10:48:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

God did not make livestock: livestock is the result of human husbandry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
It is a valid example of animal husbandry’s reliance on a tried and true prediction of Biblical Creation.

Uh-huh. That's pretty amazing considering that men have been breeding livestock since long before there was a bible, much less so-called Biblical Creation.

quote:

An evolutionary prediction would be that after enough time a cattle breeder may end up with something not at all related to cattle.

While breeders do manipulate the process of natural selection, they also reinforce the factors that make a species what it is. Iow, husbandry actually inhibits true speciation.

quote:

“Micro-evolution” is NOT creationist lingo. An evolutionist coined it.

Who?
Just seeing if you know . . .

quote:

While “micro-evolution” (simple adaptation) is compatible with the creationist worldview

Microevolution is more than "simple adaptation." In fact, simple adaptation lacks a scientific definition. Natural selection is a better term.
Since adaptation (microevolution) is a Darwinian concept, I don't see how it can sit well with creationism.

quote:

Evolution is worldview unsupported by any empirical evidence.

I call that patently untrue.



Jhud -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 11:00:00 AM)

quote:

God did not make livestock: livestock is the result of human husbandry.


Really? Humans created some several thousand years ago sheep, cattle, and goats out of thin air? What evidence do you have for this?



drmark -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 11:12:36 AM)

quote:

Uh-huh. That's pretty amazing considering that men have been breeding livestock since long before there was a bible, much less so-called Biblical Creation.
While you're at it, dblthnk, please find evidence of human records before 4000 BC to support this preposterous claim!



gluadys -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 11:35:28 AM)

quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

Seems like a pretty basic, and verified prediction, confirmed more times than can be counted - and not to mention, depended on those who raise livestock worldwide.

non-sequitur.

That is not at all non-sequitur. It is a valid example of animal husbandry’s reliance on a tried and true prediction of Biblical Creation. An evolutionary prediction would be that after enough time a cattle breeder may end up with something not at all related to cattle.


Nope. An evolutionary prediction would be that all descendants of cattle are related to cattle, and demonstrably so.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 11:40:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Uh-huh. That's pretty amazing considering that men have been breeding livestock since long before there was a bible, much less so-called Biblical Creation.
While you're at it, dblthnk, please find evidence of human records before 4000 BC to support this preposterous claim!


Obviously, since writing developed after 4000BC there are no 'human records', but there is still plenty of evidence.



swan42 -> RE: Real-world benefits of evolutionary biology (5/20/2008 11:56:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
quote:

The ideas of adaptation and natural selection (or “micro evolution”, to use creationist lingo)

“Micro-evolution” is NOT creationist lingo. An evolutionist coined it. The sole purpose of the terms “micro” and “macro” evolution are to provide a false sense of continuity between simple adaptation and microbe to man evolution. The terms are nothing more than one of evolutionists’ many deceptive word games.

While “micro-evolution” (simple adaptation) is compatible with the creationist worldview “macro-evolution” definitely is NOT.

Misuse

The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.

The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[2]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI