Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Rogue Tomato

Corn doesn't grow wild

Recommended Posts

That's because Talk Origins covers the basics pretty well, and frankly creationist objections are all the same horse♥♥♥♥ over and over and over. You'd think they'd have made some headway in the last 50 years, but no. Well, I guess they made a little--Answers in Genesis realized a handful of their bad arguments were bad and said they should not be used, which reduces the horse♥♥♥♥ quotient by about 2% if followed. (I still see people use these arguments all the time, though.)

 

I will start a thread on evolution in Off Topic, because whoa. The Cambrian Explosion claim above is just mind-blowingly wrong. If you don't like reading Talk Origins, I will walk you through some stuff there.

 

I used to be an evolution evangelist, too. I was really annoying and tried to force everyone to see things my way. So I get where you're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pikaia: Such a potty mouth. I didn't mention religion. You use what I call "hysterical arguments": No facts just wild emotions and abusive language. Maybe you'll grow up someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Pikaia: Such a potty mouth. I didn't mention religion. You use what I call "hysterical arguments": No facts just wild emotions and abusive language. Maybe you'll grow up someday.

 

Heh how do you know what arguments I use? I haven't used any yet.

 

Calling horse♥♥♥♥ horse♥♥♥♥ is not abusive language. And being an adult means knowing horse♥♥♥♥ when you see it and not being afraid to call it like you see it. But if seeing asterisks bothers you, I will cater to your sensibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh how do you know what arguments I use? I haven't used any yet.

 

Exactly, you have said nothing factual. So you think corn is not a type of grass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, you have said nothing factual. So you think corn is not a type of grass?

 

The problem with this argument is that based on your previous statements you've already ignored most of the facts. So where does one go from here? For me, I'll just step back out of the argument.

 

And, for the record, referring to all science that doesn't agree with your opinions as "pseudo science" doesn't make you look smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with this argument is that based on your previous statements you've already ignored most of the facts. So where does one go from here? For me, I'll just step back out of the argument.

 

And, for the record, referring to all science that doesn't agree with your opinions as "pseudo science" doesn't make you look smarter.

 

It wasn't an opinion.

 

For something to be called Science, it must rise and fall by the Scientific Method. As Evolution cant use the Scientific Method is cant be called a Science.

 

Hence, Pseudo Science, which is an accurate term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't an opinion.

 

For something to be called Science, it must rise and fall by the Scientific Method. As Evolution cant use the Scientific Method is cant be called a Science.

 

Hence, Pseudo Science, which is an accurate term.

 

Evolution can't use the scientific method?

 

From Wikipedia (but feel free to use any other source): The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

 

Evolution isn't a static concept, it isn't even one concept, it is many. Referring to Darwin's initial theory (or even his body of work) as THE definition of evolution would be as wrong as saying Einstein is the only definition of physics. Is that the definition of evolution you're referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution can't use the scientific method?

 

From Wikipedia (but feel free to use any other source): The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

 

Evolution isn't a static concept, it isn't even one concept, it is many. Referring to Darwin's initial theory (or even his body of work) as THE definition of evolution would be as wrong as saying Einstein is the only definition of physics. Is that the definition of evolution you're referring to?

 

Let's put the two terms together and see what happens:

- Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations including speciation.

 

Note: You can use the Scientific method with adaptation but that does not consider speciation. So if that's only what you were talking about, then I agree. But Evolution in its entirety is not a science. No speciation has been observed.

 

The scientific method has four steps

1- Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations are made visually or with the aid of scientific equipment.

2- Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3- Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by predicting and observing the existence of new phenomena that follow from the hypothesis. If experiments do not confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2).

4- Establish a theory based on repeated verification of the results.

 

1- You can observe fossils but you cant see the DNA that would be inherited. You just see what things LOOK like. Modern day corn and 5000 year corn would be considered two species which is wrong.

2- You can form a hypothesis from erroneous information at that moment but the next two step are not possible so the hypothesis should be rejected.

 

No one would be correct to say that Evolution in its entirety was a Science.

Physics, on the other hand is 100% science, not all theories within physics survive and that's how it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick search for random stuff, here's some evolutionary science:

 

Based upon the evolutionary relationship between chimps and humans, researchers theorized a comparison of genomes would show unshared endogenous retroviral sequences picked up by each species' lineage since they diverged. They found the chimp lineage had picked up several retroviruses from other primate species, which helps add to what we know about transmission of retroviruses like SIV->HIV in humans. The human lineage didn't pick up as many, which suggests differences in predation habits of our ancestors. http://jvi.asm.org/content/80/3/1367.full

 

Based upon the theory of evolution, we think birds evolved from dinosaurs. This means we at some point went from dinosaurs without feathers to birds with. These scientists predicted feathers would be found in theropod dinosaurs since they were birds' ancestors. Moreover, they made predictions about how feathers evolved through different stages from filaments to asymmetric flight feathers. They found a feathered dinosaur corroborating their theories. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/abs/410200a0.html

 

Looks like the scientific method to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are cornfields, that have since been overgrown. Unfortunately, they, much like the 7day survivor, is the last of its kind in the area.

 

So, we are corn? Or is corn we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution can't use the scientific method?

 

From Wikipedia (but feel free to use any other source): The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

 

Evolution isn't a static concept, it isn't even one concept, it is many. Referring to Darwin's initial theory (or even his body of work) as THE definition of evolution would be as wrong as saying Einstein is the only definition of physics. Is that the definition of evolution you're referring to?

 

Evolution can use the scientific method. Here's how.

 

To test the hypothesis, start with an environment that you hypothesize to be an accurate representation of the basis for your hypothesis. Put some primitive life forms in the environment (some single cell life forms, for example), and subject them to environmental pressures over millions of years to see if you can produce the equivalent of beetles and beavers that share a common ancestor.

 

That's how you test your hypothesis of macroevolution.

 

Be my guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution can use the scientific method. Here's how.

 

To test the hypothesis, start with an environment that you hypothesize to be an accurate representation of the basis for your hypothesis. Put some primitive life forms in the environment, and subject them to environmental pressures over millions of years to see if you can produce the equivalent of beetles and beavers that share a common ancestor.

 

That's how you test your hypothesis of macroevolution.

 

Be my guest.

 

I can wait till their done. :)

 

Corn - Thank the ancient Mexicans cuz modern man would never have done it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why such rigid criteria for one discipline? If we talk about plate tectonics, do you demand we wait millions of years to see the continents move before accepting the phenomenon is responsible for growing mountains? If we talk about asteroid formation, do you demand to see it for yourself in a brand new solar system?

 

We don't need to re-run evolution on a brand new planet. We can test countless aspects of the theory in all sorts of different ways. Data from multiple disciplines (including physics, which has been blessed as really science) leads us inexorably to the conclusions that the universe is old, and life evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no mention of when the apocalypse happened or how long it's been since in the game. Could be as little as a few weeks if nuclear weapons were involved (what else could create a "radiation zone"?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's put the two terms together and see what happens:

- Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations including speciation.

 

Note: You can use the Scientific method with adaptation but that does not consider speciation. So if that's only what you were talking about, then I agree. But Evolution in its entirety is not a science. No speciation has been observed.

 

The scientific method has four steps

1- Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations are made visually or with the aid of scientific equipment.

2- Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3- Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by predicting and observing the existence of new phenomena that follow from the hypothesis. If experiments do not confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2).

4- Establish a theory based on repeated verification of the results.

 

1- You can observe fossils but you cant see the DNA that would be inherited. You just see what things LOOK like. Modern day corn and 5000 year corn would be considered two species which is wrong.

2- You can form a hypothesis from erroneous information at that moment but the next two step are not possible so the hypothesis should be rejected.

 

No one would be correct to say that Evolution in its entirety was a Science.

Physics, on the other hand is 100% science, not all theories within physics survive and that's how it should be.

 

Your definition of evolution is entirely contrived. As a concept, evolution is fundamental to biology, which most certainly is a science. You can apply the scientific method to any field of study.

 

For a long time science could not explain how a black hole could exist but the theories more than suggested they were there. We still can't explain the physics inside one but that doesn't make them not real. Over time we will learn more and revise our understanding. Chemistry wasn't much different than alchemy until the atom was discovered. Our understanding of atoms changed dramatically once we discovered quarks. It will change again if we ever learn how to split a quark. Point is that science IS evolution.

 

You are using the term "in its entirety" to discount evolution as a scientific study. By that logic astronomy is not scientific because people once thought the Earth was at the center of the universe and even had mathematical proofs to support it. You can't find a single field of science where everyone believes 100% in every theory thrown around about it. There will always be people with alternate theories that don't follow the popular belief. Sometimes the majority is proven wrong and sometimes the minority is. Why should evolution be held to a different standard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why such rigid criteria for one discipline? If we talk about plate tectonics, do you demand we wait millions of years to see the continents move before accepting the phenomenon is responsible for growing mountains? If we talk about asteroid formation, do you demand to see it for yourself in a brand new solar system?

 

We don't need to re-run evolution on a brand new planet. We can test countless aspects of the theory in all sorts of different ways. Data from multiple disciplines (including physics, which has been blessed as really science) leads us inexorably to the conclusions that the universe is old, and life evolved.

 

That's science for you, not everything is a science.

 

You guess that life evolved is noted, maybe yes, maybe no, anyone's guess is equally valid and invalid.

But, as light has traveled billions of years to touch telescopes on and around earth, it is a solid theory that the universe is old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, anyone's "guess" is not equally valid! Those based upon evidence are far superior!

 

I would like to hear your interpretation, then. Given the feathered dinosaur fossil I mentioned above, the suite of similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and early birds with dinosaurian traits since lost (teeth, tails), what do YOU conclude? Do you think this is all meaningless and there is no way to coherently explain these similarities? What is your explanatory model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, anyone's "guess" is not equally valid! Those based upon evidence are far superior!

 

I would like to hear your interpretation, then. Given the feathered dinosaur fossil I mentioned above, the suite of similarities between birds and dinosaurs, and early birds with dinosaurian traits since lost (teeth, tails), what do YOU conclude? Do you think this is all meaningless and there is no way to coherently explain these similarities? What is your explanatory model?

 

What you conclude can be summed up as: "Given these fossils, I can imagine how species X evolved into species Y."

 

What that proves is that you have an imagination. And your imagination leads to a hypothesis. Now test it. That's the scientific method. Don't have millions of years to test it? Well, too bad, then you can't promote your hypothesis into a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your definition of evolution is entirely contrived. As a concept, evolution is fundamental to biology, which most certainly is a science. You can apply the scientific method to any field of study.

 

For a long time science could not explain how a black hole could exist but the theories more than suggested they were there. We still can't explain the physics inside one but that doesn't make them not real. Over time we will learn more and revise our understanding. Chemistry wasn't much different than alchemy until the atom was discovered. Our understanding of atoms changed dramatically once we discovered quarks. It will change again if we ever learn how to split a quark. Point is that science IS evolution.

 

You are using the term "in its entirety" to discount evolution as a scientific study. By that logic astronomy is not scientific because people once thought the Earth was at the center of the universe and even had mathematical proofs to support it. You can't find a single field of science where everyone believes 100% in every theory thrown around about it. There will always be people with alternate theories that don't follow the popular belief. Sometimes the majority is proven wrong and sometimes the minority is. Why should evolution be held to a different standard?

 

Look up: The 4 Steps of the Scientific Method. If you're still confused I don't know what to tell you.

 

You also confuse pre Scientific Method ancient guess work with real science. Again I don't know what to say to you.

 

You can be sure, no biologist needs Evolution to get their job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you conclude can be summed up as: "Given these fossils, I can imagine how species X evolved into species Y."

 

What that proves is that you have an imagination. And your imagination leads to a hypothesis. Now test it. That's the scientific method. Don't have millions of years to test it? Well, too bad, then you can't promote your hypothesis into a theory.

 

Did you read what I posted about dinosaurs and birds? The evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds was originally hypothesized due to similarities between birds and theropod dinosaurs. This was back when dinosaurs did not have feathers and Archaeopteryx was our most basal bird.

 

Based upon this hypothesis, scientists predicted we would find dinosaurs with avian traits, including feathers. They went out to test that by looking for fossils and were extraordinarily successful. Now it's beginning to look like feathers were widespread in the dinosaurs. It's gotten to the point that we aren't quite sure what some of these animals are, birds or dinosaurs, which is just what we would predict for an evolutionarily transition.

 

Thank you for stopping defending evolution, by the way, because you must have been doing it a disservice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look up: The 4 Steps of the Scientific Method. If you're still confused I don't know what to tell you.

 

You also confuse pre Scientific Method ancient guess work with real science. Again I don't know what to say to you.

 

You can be sure, no biologist needs Evolution to get their job done.

 

I am certain I am not the one confused in this conversation. I will follow my own advice and bow out of this now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...