Evolution? How?

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Geology is a branch of science. Same thing for chemistry, etc.

Yes very good Real Life! Head of the class you go!
real life wrote:
Evolution is a scientific theory.
real life wrote:
Geology is not a theory. Neither is chemistry. Get it?
Naughty Real Life! To the back of the class you go! In fact both geology and chemistry are based on theories. Get it?
real life wrote:
Try to keep the distinction straight.
Try and keep your distortions straight naughty boy!
real life wrote:
Trying to equate evolution with branches of science makes you sound ridiculous.
In that case thank you, because in your books ridiculous must mean reasonable.

You can't argue against evolution without arguing against all of science.

Do you think that chemistry and atomic theory are synonomous? No, one is a portion of the other. Chemistry has numerous theories that cover various aspects of this branch of science.

Show where you claim I said a theory is not good. You could not if your life depended on it. It is a figment of your imagination.

Chemistry was a branch of science pre-Darwin. So was Geology, etc. But Chemistry is not a theory. Neither is Geology a theory.

Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is not a branch of science, despite your wish that it were so.

Your inability to keep this straight doesn't help your case any. But keep it up. It is entertaining. Laughing

0 Replies

real life, You must go back to school, and sit in the back of the room, because you still do not understand evolutionary theory.

Here's a hint:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

0 Replies

A virus is aan example of biological evolution.

0 Replies

rl, your feeble protestations grow sillier the deeper you dig your hole. Atomic Theory is the core of Chemistry, FYI, just as Evolution is the core of Biology. You may deny that such be so, but all you manage to do thereby is render your objections even more laughable.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life, You must go back to school, and sit in the back of the room, because you still do not understand evolutionary theory.

Here's a hint:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

Oh well...............

Now that you put it in red.................

It all makes so much sense now. Thanks CI. Laughing

That an organism is genetically distinct from it's parents is not evidence of evolution. You are genetically distinct from your parents (that's why you were an individual person from the moment of conception, CI ) . But you haven't evolved. Your ancestors were all humans with 46 chromosomes and your descendants will be too.

0 Replies

real life, Read timbers post above yours. You still don't get it, and your foolishness only increases.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real life, Read timbers post above yours. You still don't get it, and your foolishness only increases.

Yeah I read it, but I didn't want to embarrass him by calling attention to it 'cause I'm trying to be nice.

0 Replies

Yeah, sure. Only a fool would believe that!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, sure. Only a fool would believe that!

Timber has to pretend that I deny that Atomic theory is central to Chemistry, when in fact I made no such statement.

Atomic Theory is PART OF the branch of science known as Chemistry. But they are not synonomous. Chemistry includes much more than just Atomic Theory. Chemistry is not a theory and a theory is not a branch of science.

The analogy to Biology and Evolution, while based on ardent wishful thinking, just isn't valid. Biology is a valid branch of science without need of Evolution. The deficiencies and contradictions of Evolution are not good science. They are faulty assumptions, violating key areas of science such as entropy and postulating whimsy such as life generating from non-life spontaneously.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you think that chemistry and atomic theory are synonomous?

You have asked some mighty wacko questions but that one is the wackiest so far. You can't keep straight the meaning of the words theory, chemistry, atomic, evolution Laughing

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Grade One for Real Life:

Teacher: Here is the world, it looks flat but it's not!

Real Life: Let me check my bible.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Atomic Theory is PART OF the branch of science known as Chemistry.

Try the other way around rocket science man! There would be no chemistry at all if it were not for atomic interactions.

real life wrote:

Chemistry is not a theory and a theory is not a branch of science.

This is priceless! Dare I ask, if chemistry is not based on chemical theory, what do suppose it is based on, peanut butter & jelly sandwiches perchance?

0 Replies

rl, Chemistry is nought but Atomic Theory. Ask a chemist if there is any other explanation for why chemistry works. And like it or not, Biology is nought but Evolution. Atomic Theory is the "WHY"" of the workings of Chemistry, and Evolution is the "WHY" of the workings of Biology.

Your proposition is a joke, it has no foundation or authority apart from its own claims to same, and is part-and-parcel of fear, ignorance, and arrogance. Now, I certainly don't want to dissuade you from pressing your proposition - given that I'm a staunch opponent of religionist propositions in general and in most particular of the Fundamentalist Christian subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, I value the contribution you and those of like mind with you make in the cause of ultimately exposing the absurdity of Fundamentalist Christianity for the fraud it is; the proposition's most active proponents are its own worst enemies. Keep up the good work.

Now, once again, demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The deficiencies and contradictions of Evolution are not good science.

In that case, don't pay attention to what the media says about BSE infected beef. It's perfectly safe, according to your definition. There's deficiencies and contradictions in finding the causes of BSE and vCJD. It might not be rogue prions, after all.

Oh, and Alzheimer's research. That's bunkus too, because there's deficiencies and contradictions in that line of research too. Some say plaques are responsible for Alzheimer's, other say not.

Quote:

They are faulty assumptions, violating key areas of science such as entropy

Evolution does not violate entropy. It's been discussed before, although I can't remember if it was in this discussion of evolution or in another one I participated in on a completely different board.

The basis of entropy is that things will become more chaotic in a closed system. Well, the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is being fed into the system from the Sun, which is outside.

Quote:

and postulating whimsy such as life generating from non-life spontaneously.

No one postulated that life generated from non-life spontaneously. People are postulating that an outside stimulus, possibly irradiation from space (either from the Sun or maybe just heat from the Earth) caused life to generate.

I notice, RL, that first you put up a strawman which consists of your ill-informed view of evolution and then knock down your own ideas about evolution. Well done! Now can you knock down the research of the majority of biomolecular, biochemical scientists and those of related subjects?

0 Replies

Technically rl is correct that atomic theory is only a PART of chemistry, and not necessarily the most seminal part. Chemical reactions were predictable before Thompson and Rutherfords work and even Dalton's little "ping pong ball atomic theory" didnt matter to the early predictive advances made in chemistry. However, what rl misses is that the weight imparted by the concepts of atomic theory(for connecting physics and chemistry) and evolution (for bio, paleo etc) complement each other without ANY discrepancies.
RLs continuous repetition of the "violation of entropy" is like clinging to a roof's edge by ones fingernails. Biological systems, while alive, violate entropy all the time. Life itself is one big violation of entropy because the reactions that occur in life occur against chemical gradients and are the artificial maintenance of order until life ends, then entropy (at least for the individual, ) catshes up.

The argument that WOlf made that the earth isnt a closed system is one that the Creationists have always purposely dismissed.

It sounds like rl will continuously hang on to his erroneous and outdated arguments as long as he thinks that someone new can be convinced of his "science".
Unfortunately, the real world has passed him by.

There was a lovely show on the evolution of feathers last night. It was a carefully constructed report of how genetics research and paleontological evidence have nicely dovetailed from the fossil record to the discovery of two little genes (not so little since one, like haemoglobin contains over 500 proteins). Im always amazed at how the careful plodding work of many scientists is dismissed out of hand by people with absolutely no clue into the workings of biological systems or dont want to learn anything about the piles of evidence gathered by others.

0 Replies

The crucial limiting factor is the desparate adherence to scriptural writ, rather than the fearful proposition of letting go that phoney raft to swim off into a free investigation of the cosmos in which we reside.

The member "real life" is consistently dishonest about the topic, but when cornered, admits to adherence to scriptural literalism--while constantly implying it, such as when he makes claims about geology which imply a world-wide flood event. However, "real life" scores off of everyone here consistently by avoiding the burden of truth and shoving it back onto those who come here in good faith to answer the titular question of the "how" of evolution.

So, "real life" (heeheeheeheeheehee), what evidence can you advance for the existence of your imaginary frined? What evidence can you advance that the diviersity of life on this planet results from a "creation?"

0 Replies

curious minds wish to know.

0 Replies

Quote:

What evidence can you advance that the diviersity of life on this planet results from a "creation?"

It's a question asked several times and Real has no answer.

Without science to support his Biblical mythology he has demonstrated that his position has no credibility.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Technically rl is correct that atomic theory is only a PART of chemistry, and not necessarily the most seminal part. Chemical reactions were predictable before Thompson and Rutherfords work and even Dalton's little "ping pong ball atomic theory" didnt matter to the early predictive advances made in chemistry.

I don't quite get that unless you are talking about Chemistry from a historical perspective because there would be no chemistry at all it not for atomic interactions. I would have thought that even though chemistry was useable before atomic theory was known that atomic theory must underly chemistry. Or are you talking about how these disciplines are classified?

0 Replies

most chemistry is molecular. Atomic Theory was a late 19th century additive. Its important but not necessarily vital to all chemistry . Avogodro came up with his number which we use in mole weights, back in the 1600's. So did Boyle and his gas Laws, or even surface chemistry and covalent bonding. Weve understood about molecular reactions for centuries. SO
Im stickin with the chestnut that Atomic Theory is more responsible for the conjoining of chemistry and fysix to create a separate discipline, radiochemistry. We knew about ions and valences way before atomic theory. Im not kidding/ Of course weve leaped light years because of atomic theory, but wed originally gotten along quite nicely in chemistry without it.
What rl says is not incorrect, he does like to isolate things and rely upon single lines of "reasoning" without recognizing the contributions that radiochemistry has made to our understanding of deep time, evolution, and other things like continental drift.
I just wanna have us all talk from the same script.

0 Replies

Thanks Farmerman,
I got atomic and molecular mixed up.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know