Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:01
@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile.
Joined: June 18 2008
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:10
Negoba wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Science and religion may not be "mutually exclusive" but they will always be in conflict because they are two different ways of approaching much of the same questions. Saying science answers the hows and religion answers the whys is a false dichotomy of sorts to me.
Saying that religion answers the questions concerning the meaning of life presupposes that there is a meaning to life. I don't see why the question should be asked.
Evolution is BOTH a fact AND a theory. Just as with gravity. There are two distinct concepts.
Evolution is defined as "the change in allele frequencies in a population." That's the fact. We observe it in every known population. The THEORY explains why those changes occur. That is where natural selection, genetic drift, etc. come in play.
That's why I use the word "speciation." Speciation is a fact. Evolution is a somewhat poorly named theory.
Allele frequencies can change without speciation. Those are two different things. (Unless you are saying something else that I didn't pick up on.)
@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile.
Sorry, dude. Just trying to show you that subjective evidence does not equal incorrect evidence. Basic really. Didn't think I would have to go into a dissertation to do it, though.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:14
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile.
translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:18
Negoba wrote:
You're right, again a poor word used to describe the process. But the objective phenomenon we're all interested in is speciation, I think.
There is variety in the forms of life, both at one time, and across time.
That's the fact.
The question is why?
Evolution through natural selection. Speciation is simply used to describe the fact that when lifeforms evolve they at some point become genetically incompatible with their ancestors. Species are defined by genetic compatibility.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:19
Negoba wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile.
translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.
Not really. It's about responding to arguments. People who post irrational or incoherent answers are simply impossible to reason with.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:36
(yes, it's on the Dawkins channel, no, it's not Dawkins speaking. It's Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, and the whole video is exactly about evolution vs. creationism)
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 16:55
I don't see why we should discuss details on a level of biology professionals. I see it as a convenient way for creationists to distract from the basic issue. In essence, what evolution means is that we share a common ancestor with all other forms of life on the planet. Do you agree with that, or don't you, and in that case - why not?
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2009 at 16:56
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 05 2009 at 17:09
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I don't see why we should discuss details on a level of biology professionals. I see it as a convenient way for creationists to distract from the basic issue. In essence, what evolution means is that we share a common ancestor with all other forms of life on the planet. Do you agree with that, or don't you, and in that case - why not?
So you're not interested in talking about the actual science involved?
Whether their was a single origin of life is not certain, even to the most strident atheists.
And given that I am a professional in a biological field, I don't know how else I'm supposed to discuss these things.
Edited by Negoba - December 05 2009 at 17:10
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 17:13
^ certainly not by avoiding the question.
Everyone can discuss this topic ... it doesn't require a degree in biology. Insisting on that level of detail is a typical tactic of a creationist. Now, are we cousins of chimpanzees or not? It's a very simple question.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: December 05 2009 at 18:29
You seem to be more interested in attacking my posts than in discussion evolution, so indeed I might have lost track of your position.
BTW: It's interesting to see how much you're still interested in quivering about words, especially considering that - like you confirmed - the distinction between "common ancestor" and "common ancestral species" doesn't change the answer.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 05 2009 at 18:32
@AmbianceMan: Sorry, but I will not answer any more of your posts ... each time I do, you come up with a more crazy response. Good luck with your fight against the theory of evolution, I know it is futile.
translation: unless you play on my court exclusively, I don't want to play.
That's exacty what I thought as well Negoba. I haven't seen this level of close-mindedness in quite a while.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Posted: December 05 2009 at 18:47
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You seem to be more interested in attacking my posts than in discussion evolution, so indeed I might have lost track of your position.
BTW: It's interesting to see how much you're still interested in quivering about words, especially considering that - like you confirmed - the distinction between "common ancestor" and "common ancestral species" doesn't change the answer.
Because it's your degree of certainty that bothers me.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: December 05 2009 at 18:57
AmbianceMan wrote:
Dean wrote:
Not getting into the Global Warming argument, but where/what/how is it being exposed for what it is? And more to the point - why do you believe the exposing to be true and not Global Warming data?
Have you seen the recent exposed emails from global warming scientists who were caught manipulating formulas and skewing data? If not, the cover up is already in full swing. Big news really. It has to do with the data itself. Same thing happened with global cooling, and it's going to happen again. Follow the money trail. And besides that, studies are coming out showing cooling trends and are being ignored.
And what exactly is this skewed data? (that's twice you've used skewed data btw, both times incorrectly as I understand the term from a mathematical standpoint).
There are two means of measuring average climate temperatures - the direct way, using mercury or alcohol thermometers, bi-metal thermocouples or materials with known temperature co-efficients or the indirect way proxy indicators like, tree-rings, corals, ice cores etc. Now obviously no one can take direct measurements way back in history so they have to rely on proxy measurement method. The problem there is single proxy measurements are not as accurate as a single direct measurement - so they gather 100s of sample readings from as many sources as they can and do statistical analysis on them to calculate the mean value and its variance. Having done that they can plot the results on a graph, which using the proxy data alone shows a marked increase in temperature since 1900 (the so called hockey stick). Unfortunately the proxy data stops at 1980. The "Trick" so craftily exposed is that they tacked the direct instrument temperature measurements from 1980 to 1999 on to the end of the graph.... and labelled the two sets of data accordingly to avoid confusion. Oh wow - the shame of it - drum them out of the Imperial Science Guild (<- sarcasm ).
Dean wrote:
And more to the point - why do you believe the exposing to be true and not Global Warming data?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Evolution vs. Creationism
Topic Options
Negoba wrote:
).