PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution’s foes lose ground i
       Darwin’s defenders increase their strength on Board of

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It looks like in most instances (at least above the Mason-Dixon line) when the candidates make their positions clear at the outset, the anti-evolution candidates lose.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:38 AM on August 2, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapis, you should halt putting up posts just to add to our "scoreline". None the less, the good never number more than a few anyway, so it is expected that pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.

I am not trying to appease the intelligent design enthusiasts either. They should be more explicit in what they believe: in the almighty God or some so called undefined intelligent designer!


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 06:46 AM on August 3, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapis, you should halt putting up posts just to add to our "scoreline".

Please, Apoapis' posts are always welcome.  They are informative, logical and well thought out.  

None the less, the good never number more than a few anyway, so it is expected that pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.

Evos have the upper hand because evolution is valid and is successfully applied in the real world...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:56 AM on August 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


None the less, the good never number more than a few anyway, so it is expected that pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.


Right. That must be why neo-nazis are a minority in both the US and globe.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:17 PM on August 3, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Daemon: "Please, Apoapis' posts are always welcome.  They are informative, logical and well thought out."

All I can say to that is: there is reason behind the proverb which says that the habit does not make the monk...  Such posts actually accentuate this.    

Enk: "Right. That must be why neo-nazis are a minority in both the US and globe."

No where in my statement did I exclude a
possibillity of an evil minority existing within a pool of an evil majority. Evil is evil and cannot be classsified. Bottom line: Neo-nazis are a part (in fact part and parcel) of an evil majority.

Much respect, the cipher is complete...


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 04:42 AM on August 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I can say to that is: there is reason behind the proverb which says that the habit does not make the monk...  Such posts actually accentuate this.

What the hell does this mean?!?  Apoapsis' post is relevant, interesting and something I wanted to read.  I guess you can't muster a rebuttal, so you resort to obscure proverbs instead of trying to refute his statement....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:21 AM on August 8, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Daemon : “What does this mean?”  

Clearly English is not quite your mother tongue… I’ll elucidate for matter of clarity.   A habitual visit to a monastery, citing a bald head and orange gown, does not make you a Dilai Lama. Similarly, cutting and pasting redundant information on these forums does not grant you any expertise in the subject at hand.

Anyway such posts are usually marred by plagiaristic comments and add little value to stir up debate; which is not what a debate forum is about. Don’t get me wrong though, Apoapsis has other  interesting views…



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 06:01 AM on August 11, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Clearly English is not quite your mother tongue… I’ll elucidate for matter of clarity.


Clearly, you’ve no willingness to discuss the actual issue.

A habitual visit to a monastery, citing a bald head and orange gown, does not make you a Dilai Lama.


That was already quite clear. The relation of the proverb to the discussion is lacking, however:

Similarly, cutting and pasting redundant information on these forums does not grant you any expertise in the subject at hand.


Anything having to do with the debate surrounding the ToE is going to seem redundant, but that’s besides the point. You seem to be the only one here who thinks Apoapsis was attempting to look like an expert on the subject of the ToE by bringing up a relevant article. Therefore, you also seem to be the only person who finds similarity in the proverb and Apoapsis' action of supplying an article on the ToE debate. From where in Apoapsis’ post did you gather such a ridiculous idea?

Moving on now….

Contesting us as “self-appointed experts” on the ToE seems to be your latest tactic. Why you question our ‘expertise’ (which, to my knowledge, none of us have claimed to have much of anyway) remains to be seen, because however much expertise on the ToE we lack, it still outdoes yours. As with trial law, expertise should be measured through a person's knowledge of the topic they're an expert on, and their expertise should be demonstrated by their ability to explain it to everyone else. Time and time again, Demon, Apoapsis, Roy and I have all demonstrated a greater knowledge of the ToE than you. Questioning our expertise on the ToE won't shorten the gap in yours.

I’d like you to clarify this stipulation you made in your first post of this thread:

Apoapis, you should halt putting up posts just to add to our "scoreline". None the less, the good never number more than a few anyway, so it is expected that pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity (…)


Is this merely an expectation, or do you agree that the amount of ToE-accepting scientists outnumbers the amount of scientists who don’t accept the theory?

The rest of the quote:

(…) it is expected that pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.


Beyond the baseless and entirely subjective statement, “The good never number anymore than a few,” please explain why.

Anyway such posts are usually marred by plagiaristic comments and add little value to stir up debate; which is not what a debate forum is about. Don’t get me wrong though, Apoapsis has other  interesting views…


Please point out all plagiarism in the article Apoapsis supplied, so that we can contact the website and have the article removed.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/11/2006 at 5:40 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:50 PM on August 11, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin: “Clearly, you’ve no willingness to discuss the actual issue.”

The residing issue here is a very clear reply to Daemon’s question: “What the hell does this mean?” (Referring to the cited proverb). Need I explain further? There is no discussion here I’m explicitly condemning Apoapsis’ vile post and questioning the relevance of such a post especially in sector frankly polluted by evos. What’s lacking is not a relation of the proverb to the “discussion”; what’s lacking is an understanding of a basic proverb (evidently by you and Daemon). I seek not to engage this further.

EntwickelnCollin: “From where in Apoapsis’ post did you gather such a ridiculous idea?”

It is a psychological thing. Those who want to impress will go their way to “out-source” expertise by citing research papers and thus reaping any spill over benefits associated with such a papers. It is very much clear that any research paper confers expertise to the reader and thus the reader may misinterpret this as a personal expertise on a particular subject. Unfortunately, the reader believes by citing such, he/she may stand out as a knowledgeable person. (Sorry Apoapsis, I’m the victim here!)

EntwickelnCollin: “…have all demonstrated a greater knowledge of the ToE than you”

There again, you have emphasized my point. Who has credited you with this “superior” knowledge? Lyell or your “father” Darwin? According to my experience here, our understanding of the ToE may differ only because we understand it differently. You seen completely convinced of its claims yet I am exposing its fallacies and impracticalities. For matter of clarity, we are living in the same age and I would like to believe that we exposed to the same information on the ToE.

EntwickelnCollin: “Is this merely an expectation, or do you agree that the amount of ToE-accepting scientists outnumbers the amount of scientists who don’t accept the theory?”

I already have qualified this by stating that the good never number more than a few. Hence I would agree that pro-evos dominate the world of science. For a tentative number, observe the number of pro-evos on this site!

To circumvent further redundancy, allow me to make my point clear. Such posts, though informative to some, are driven by custom and not conviction. I will entertain your other post later…

Much respect.



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 03:50 AM on August 21, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The residing issue here is a very clear reply to Daemon’s question: “What the hell does this mean?” (Referring to the cited proverb). Need I explain further? There is no discussion here I’m explicitly condemning Apoapsis’ vile post and questioning the relevance of such a post especially in sector frankly polluted by evos. What’s lacking is not a relation of the proverb to the “discussion”; what’s lacking is an understanding of a basic proverb (evidently by you and Daemon). I seek not to engage this further.

The point was that anti evolutionists lose when it comes to the courts.  I still don't know how your "proverb" applies...  When tested in the court system, evolution is shown to be valid science, ID is shown to be non-science.  So I don't see how your proverb applies, Apoapsis has posted a relevant article.  And I reject your claim that reading available scientific research (regarless of whether it's cut and pasted) doesn't make one more informed on the subject!  This, if you hadn't noticed, is a debate forum.  Apoapsis posted a topic to discuss.  You couldn't discuss that topic intelligently so you attack the poster, a sure sign of a weak position....

There again, you have emphasized my point. Who has credited you with this “superior” knowledge? Lyell or your “father” Darwin? According to my experience here, our understanding of the ToE may differ only because we understand it differently.

Apoapsis, EntwickelnCollin and others on the board have a "superior" knowledge of evolution than you because they actually know what it entails.  You've demonstrated that you don't understand evolution, that's why our understanding of the TOE differs.

You seen completely convinced of its claims yet I am exposing its fallacies and impracticalities. For matter of clarity, we are living in the same age and I would like to believe that we exposed to the same information on the ToE.

The theory of evolution is so well supported, it's considered a fact by virtually all biologists.
You've yet to expose any fallacies or impracticalities....  Yes, we are exposed to the same information, you can't seem to understand it.  

I already have qualified this by stating that the good never number more than a few. Hence I would agree that pro-evos dominate the world of science. For a tentative number, observe the number of pro-evos on this
site!


How does this square with other branches of science?  The scientists who support a spherical earth greatly outnumber those who believe in a flat earth...  The scientists who support the helicentric theory greatly outnumber those who believe in the geocentric theory.  The reason the experts, those best able to determine the validity of the TOE, all accept evolution is because the evidence is so overwhelming.  The reason we can practically apply the TOE in food production, medicine, industry, is because it's valid.  

Please feel free to discuss any of my points and attempt to refute them...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:13 AM on August 21, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What’s lacking is not a relation of the proverb to the “discussion”; what’s lacking is an understanding of a basic proverb (evidently by you and Daemon). I seek not to engage this further.


Because we both know you don’t actually believe the statement quoted above, and because you said it for the sole purpose of goading me, I’ll let it go.

It is a psychological thing. Those who want to impress will go their way to “out-source” expertise by citing research papers and thus reaping any spill over benefits associated with such a papers.


And you automatically assume that Apoapsis is trying to do that. Never mind the complete absence of praise. The only one who has seemed to believe Apoapsis wanted to impress readers was you.

It is very much clear that any research paper confers expertise to the reader and thus the reader may misinterpret this as a personal expertise on a particular subject. Unfortunately, the reader believes by citing such, he/she may stand out as a knowledgeable person.


It was obvious a long time before Apoapsis cited the article in question that he could understand it.

There again, you have emphasized my point. Who has credited you with this “superior” knowledge? Lyell or your “father” Darwin? According to my experience here, our understanding of the ToE may differ only because we understand it differently.


You don’t understand the ToE to begin with, and you’ve made no visible effort to, either. On the contrary, you boast a lack of knowledge of the subject, which is further supported by your parroting of creationist claims that have been discredited and refuted countless times across both the world and internet.

You seen completely convinced of its claims yet I am exposing its fallacies and impracticalities.


You have yet to expose a single fallacy. (What do you define as an ‘impracticality’ of a scientific theory?) Instead of arguing against the validity of the ToE, you’ve spent the vast majority of your time on this board arguing against just your opponents’ rhetoric.

For matter of clarity, we are living in the same age and I would like to believe that we exposed to the same information on the ToE.


We certainly are exposed to the same information. As you know, however, the difference between you and I is that you refuse to adequately research said information. There have been some very smart and compelling opponents of the ToE on this board; you are not one of them.

I already have qualified this by stating that the good never number more than a few. Hence I would agree that pro-evos dominate the world of science. For a tentative number, observe the number of pro-evos on this site!


I’ll stipulate the number of ToE-accepting biologists (and scientists overall) outnumbers ToE-rejecting biologists and scientists.

Now support your claim (or, if you would prefer, ‘the expectation’) that “pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.”

To circumvent further redundancy, allow me to make my point clear. Such posts, though informative to some, are driven by custom and not conviction.


In this instance, it’s nothing more than speculation. Save yourself some credibility and agree that it’s possible Apoapsis’ post was not driven by any need for attention.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/21/2006 at 4:49 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:58 PM on August 21, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38: “I still don't know how your "proverb" applies...”

Do you even read (not browse through) posts? I believe that I’ve addressed this issue, the proverb does not apply to what is being discussed in the article but it is directed at Apoapsis’ ad hoc approach in submitting such an article. Truth is, it may be relevant to you (the otherwise) but in the eyes of the wise it is unnecessary and represents futility in such a site.    

Demon38: “The theory of evolution is so well supported; it's considered a fact by      virtually all biologists.”

Yes and Brazil are so well supported; they are considered the best by virtually all football supporters. Where is the evidence? We may only agree here buy gut feel, have you met ALL biologists? Biologists representing evolution dogma are often given preference in scientific journals.

Demon38: “The scientists who support a spherical earth greatly outnumber those         who believe in a flat earth...”  

A flat earth is observable; evolution in its rudimentary form is not. No person with science honors can dispute a spherical earth. Please show me the OVERWHELMING evidence for the ToE…

Now EntwickelnCollin:

Since words cost nothing, I’ll address your grievances. It’s a pity that Apoapsis is not quite around to produce a personal defence and to address his personal motive behind such a post. I would like to believe that he was not starting up a topic for discussion but merely trying to comfort evos in their plight. Hence I opted to criticize his motive since the details of the article are quite plain and need not to be entertained. Also, intelligent design should not be mistaken as creationism; I’m not standing as an exponent of such.  

Evolution is a process which ENDEAVUORS TO define the development (over billions of years) of living things from a primitive form, it seeks to define the origins and evolution of species hence Darwin’s book. Evolution rests in the premise of occurrence over billions of years. Scientists boast radiometric dating, carbon layer analysis and other forms of guestimation in achieving such conclusions. Let’s be honest now, billions and billions of years and here we are today… Humans have mastery when it come s to imperfection, we hardly live a hundred years yet we can precisely postulate billions adjusted for climate, biological, geological changes and the like… Tell me you are joking! No model is correct.

“Now support your claim (or, if you would prefer, ‘the expectation’) that “pro-evos may have the upper hand in quantity but not in quality.”

It is an expectation. Most biologists/scientists enter their fields of research as default believers of the ToE. In a similar manner most computers operate on default settings, mostly due to ignorance of the user. Hence most scientists and PC users represent quantity not quality. Now, it may be an arduous task to change a leopards spots.
[b][i][/i]


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 04:16 AM on August 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you even read (not browse through) posts? I believe that I’ve addressed this issue, the proverb does not apply to what is being discussed in the article but it is directed at Apoapsis’ ad hoc approach in submitting such an article. Truth is, it may be relevant to you (the otherwise) but in the eyes of the wise it is unnecessary and represents futility in such a site.


Go away, troll. You have not even a scrap of evidence of Apoapsis’ alleged ulterior intentions.

Yes and Brazil are so well supported; they are considered the best by virtually all football supporters. Where is the evidence? We may only agree here buy gut feel, have you met ALL biologists?


You want the evidence that Brazil is the best football team? Well, we could always start with the number of points Brazil earned in the international league this year, which includes those earned at the World Cup:

FIFA World Rankings:

1 Brazil           1649
2 Italy        1550
3 Argentina    1479
4 France       1462
5 England      1434


Next you ask for evidence that virtually all biologists accept the ToE. All well and good.

There are more ToE-accepting biologists with the form of the first name Steve than there are scientists in all fields combined that disagree with the ToE:

Project Steve

As of July 31, 2006, there are 749 biologists with the name of Steve or variation thereof who support the ToE’s standing.

According to the Discovery Institute, the most well-known anti-ToE source on the planet, there are only 610 scientists in all fields combined (those biology-relevant fields like meteorology and psychiatry) that disagree with the ToE.

A flat earth is observable; evolution in its rudimentary form is not. No person with science honors can dispute a spherical earth. Please show me the OVERWHELMING evidence for the ToE…


Overwhelming Evidence for the ToE

I pondered directly copy-pasting the links to the journals and a few portions of them myself, but there’s just too much there. Happy reading.

Cases of Observed Speciation: (I’ll just post a few. If I were to post them all, I’d flood the thread.)

1.) Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

2.) Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.


There’s evidence and observed documentation of evolution. Thank you. In the future, please don’t ask that stupid question again.

Since words cost nothing, I’ll address your grievances. It’s a pity that Apoapsis is not quite around to produce a personal defence and to address his personal motive behind such a post. I would like to believe that he was not starting up a topic for discussion but merely trying to comfort evos in their plight. Hence I opted to criticize his motive since the details of the article are quite plain and need not to be entertained.


We were already aware you would like to think that. The point is that you can’t possibly know that.

Also, intelligent design should not be mistaken as creationism; I’m not standing as an exponent of such.  


Irrelevant. You’ve cited claims that ID never made, that are in fact of Creationism. I never said you were a Creationist—just that you’ve parroted their claims.

Evolution is a process which ENDEAVUORS TO define the development (over billions of years) of living things from a primitive form


Wrong on so many levels. Evolution can take as little as a few hours, and there’s nothing in the ToE that states the lineage must progress away from primitive stages. If nuclear bombs detonated across the surface of the earth, natural selection would likely leave bacteria, the most primitive life forms we know of, as the survivors.

Evolution rests in the premise of occurrence over billions of years.


Evolution of all life on this earth, I’ll agree with, yes.

Scientists boast radiometric dating, carbon layer analysis and other forms of guestimation in achieving such conclusions. Let’s be honest now, billions and billions of years and here we are today… Humans have mastery when it come s to imperfection, we hardly live a hundred years yet we can precisely postulate billions adjusted for climate, biological, geological changes and the like… Tell me you are joking! No model is correct.


Your subjective opinion. The lack of evidence to refute the scientific data is noted.

It is an expectation. Most biologists/scientists enter their fields of research as default believers of the ToE. In a similar manner most computers operate on default settings, mostly due to ignorance of the user. Hence most scientists and PC users represent quantity not quality. Now, it may be an arduous task to change a leopards spots.


It’s nice that, again, you strengthen the notion that ToE-accepting biologists outnumber ToE-denying biologists. Now support the claim that ToE-denying biologists outdo ToE-accepting biologists on the basis of quality. An inverse correlation between quantity and quality is just speculation, and you forgot to mention that most ToE-denying biologists enter the field with a religion they've been taught since birth.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/25/2006 at 12:12 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:05 PM on August 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long is this going to last, Cipher? There's nothing inherently wrong with responding once every week, but it'd be nice if you posted on a faster basis instead of leaving the rest of us to wait another six days.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:44 PM on August 25, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Unfortunately my current operations do not allow me to respond as profusely as I would like, I’ll do my best to be more frequent though. We’ve established earlier that redundancy is a key parcel in evolution luggage and hence here we see an ideal manifestation of that. All I’m requesting you to do is to revert to common sense, before flaunting your evolutionist gear. I humbly request a more didactic reply on  my previous question: “Humans have mastery when it come s to imperfection, we hardly live a hundred years yet we can precisely postulate billions adjusted for climate, biological, geological changes and the like...” – Are you familiar with the Markov Property?

Entwickelcollin: “You want the evidence that Brazil is the best football team?”

Your haphazard response has maligned what could have been a crafty reply to my question on evo supporting biologists. Please reread my previous post, digest it and contemplate whether I asked for evidence of the above. BTW for matter of note, FIFA world rankings are not derived by “virtually all football supporters”. And lastly, it is advisable not to bring ice to ice-land!

Entwickelcollin: “There’s evidence and observed documentation of evolution. Thank you. In the future, please don’t ask that stupid question again.”

A little bit of emotional attitude! I must really be the imbecile of the global class.  “OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE” on evolution has seemed not to cross my lonely path. 1)To me it is very much apparent that while we live in the same earth with a variety of other species, it is imperative that we share genetic structures as we are joint-inhabitants and are exposed to almost the same  parameters of earthly life e.g. gases in air, temperature etc. Evolution within species is permissible and clearly observable. A lynx may be a lion in disguise, evolved. Form if more perfect than matter, and indeed it owes its being to it!

2) Your evidence here might have lacked one of key causal processes of evolution. Where is NATURAL SELECTION here? Earlier, one of the evos here, cited that primeval life on earth started because of random natural occurrences. Where do we draw the line when applying treatments to these experimental units? A prospective cohort study remains a more sound form of evidence. Do we need billions of years?  

Entwickelcollin: “Irrelevant. You’ve cited claims that ID never made…”

I am not an exponent of ID! Who said anything about Creationism?
I do believe in the God of the Bible.

Entwickelcollin: “Now support the claim that ToE-denying biologists outdo ToE-    accepting biologists on the basis of quality… they've been taught    since birth”

The fact that there are conflicting sides within the profession reflects that there is an inherent problem with the ToE. When it comes to acceptance of the ToE temperance ,rather, comes before religion (may be objective). Reason being, ToE enthusiasts dwell on evidence which is not outright hence the conflict in interests.  We can go on to engage a religious person (Creationist) who believes in evolution....



-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 07:22 AM on August 31, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact that there are conflicting sides within the profession reflects that there is an inherent problem with the ToE.

And here's what you refuse to understand, there aren't any conflicting sides within biology.
Virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution.  There are no biologists who reject evolution on the strength of evidence.  99.9% of the world's biologists accept it.  You have yet to show us any inherent problems with the TOE.

From ACADEMY OF SCIENCE OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
"The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in 1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community."

From  
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
"The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria. Evolution should be part of the pre-college curriculum; it is the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life."

From  
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
"During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."

From  
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
"Biologists may disagree about the details of the history and mechanisms of evolution. Such debate is a normal, healthy, and necessary part of scientific discourse and in no way negates the theory of evolution. As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and analysis."

Evolution is central to modern biology and medicine, virtually all biologists accept it.  Please show us the inherent problems you claim exist.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:48 PM on August 31, 2006 | IP
CipherComplete

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the superflous information Demon38, I'll engage it once I've read it. But you still maintain VIRTUALLY all...  


-------
"Godliness with contentment is great gain"
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 4:51 PM on August 31, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

“Humans have mastery when it come s to imperfection, we hardly live a hundred years yet we can precisely postulate billions adjusted for climate, biological, geological changes and the like...”


The human brain’s conclusions are based on perception. Assuming we accurately perceive the universe—a notion no one can disprove, because none of us are immune to the same limitations of our perception—there should be no problem with mathematical decisions.

If you want to bring into doubt not only the mathematics involved with the ToE, but all of science, however, I can’t disagree with your logic. Physics and chemistry are based on perceptions that are no more fundamentally perfect than in biology.

A little bit of emotional attitude! I must really be the imbecile of the global class.


That appears to be the only explanation. Denying the existence of evidence in support of the ToE is a lot like stating 2 + 2 = 5. Your statements in respect to ToE evidence are irritating—and nothing more than that. If you had a sincere, knowledgeable problem with the ToE’s evidence, you’d bother pointing out a hole in it that science can’t explain.

“OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE” on evolution has seemed not to cross my lonely path.


We already knew that. But, once again, refusal to research this topic is no excuse.

1)To me it is very much apparent that while we live in the same earth with a variety of other species, it is imperative that we share genetic structures as we are joint-inhabitants and are exposed to almost the same  parameters of earthly life e.g. gases in air, temperature etc. Evolution within species is permissible and clearly observable. A lynx may be a lion in disguise, evolved. Form if more perfect than matter, and indeed it owes its being to it!


Explain to me the scientific limitations that prevent speciation. Next, refute the observed instances of speciation in my last reply.

2) Your evidence here might have lacked one of key causal processes of evolution. Where is NATURAL SELECTION here? Earlier, one of the evos here, cited that primeval life on earth started because of random natural occurrences. Where do we draw the line when applying treatments to these experimental units? A prospective cohort study remains a more sound form of evidence. Do we need billions of years?


Are you asserting that when exposed to an antibody, E. Coli won’t naturally evolve to resist it? If the experiments proving speciation don’t take into account natural conditions, please cite those they missed. Denying the plain truth of the experiments I cited—that speciation is possible and has been observed—just confirms that you will remain incredulous to the ToE no matter how much evidence is presented.

I am not an exponent of ID! Who said anything about Creationism?
I do believe in the God of the Bible.


If you believe a supernatural entity had any part to do in the way life got to be the way it is, you are indeed an ID’ist.

The fact that there are conflicting sides within the profession reflects that there is an inherent problem with the ToE.


There are “conflicting sides” to the ToE in the same way that there are “conflicting sides” to the scientific notion that the earth is round. An extremely small minority disagrees with the scientific conclusions because they think their own nonscientific beliefs conflict. In other words, the dissenting minority has no authority or significance.

Thanks for the superflous information Demon38, I'll engage it once I've read it. But you still maintain VIRTUALLY all...  


Just as virtually all scientists approve of  Gravity, and virtually all scientists approve of a round Earth.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:30 PM on August 31, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you believe a supernatural entity had any part to do in the way life got to be the way it is, you are indeed an ID’ist.


Not necessarily... the last pope supported evolution, the current pope supports ID.  I don't believe you considered the last pope to  NOT believe in a supernatural entity.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:03 AM on September 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Not necessarily... the last pope supported evolution, the current pope supports ID.  I don't believe you considered the last pope to  NOT believe in a supernatural entity.


Not only do ID'ists believe in a supernatural being, but they believe it was directly involved in the process of how life came to be the way it is. You're an ID'ist, while Ken Miller, a Catholic who believes God was only indirectly involved, is not.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/8/2006 at 07:19 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:21 PM on September 1, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.