religious people don't care about truth

rosborne979 wrote:

Genetics is the best example. Evolution predicted that organisms passed on their traits, but how? A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

You attempted to credit evolutionary theory for the notion that organisms pass on their traits.

We have known that for THOUSANDS of years , Ros, as I pointed out in my response to this misconception of yours.

We did not need to wait for evolutionary theory to know that organisms pass on their traits.

A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Genetics is the best example. Evolution predicted that organisms passed on their traits, but how? A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

You attempted to credit evolutionary theory for the notion that organisms pass on their traits.

We have known that for THOUSANDS of years , Ros, as I pointed out in my response to this misconception of yours.

We did not need to wait for evolutionary theory to know that organisms pass on their traits.

It's nice to see that you can read at least one sentence out of a paragraph, but please try to read the whole paragraph and get the point.

rosborne979 wrote:

A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

I sure hope this isn't the extent of your attempt to demonstrate some level of understanding of evolution, because all you've demonstrated is your inability to comprehend the context of the message.

Sadly, this is a recurring weakness in your posts.

All right, Ros, let's go at this point by point.

Do you agree that mankind has known for thousands of years that organisms pass on their traits?

If this is so, in what reasonable sense can you take this long-established fact and claim 'evolution predicted this' ?

real life wrote:

All right, Ros, let's go at this point by point.

Oh sure, you play fast and loose with terminology and semantics all the time, and now suddenly you want to go 'point by point'. How about holding yourself up to the same standards first.

real life wrote:

Do you agree that mankind has known for thousands of years that organisms pass on their traits?

Sure, that's just as obvious as evolution itself.

real life wrote:

If this is so, in what reasonable sense can you take this long-established fact and claim 'evolution predicted this' ?

Evolution predicted a mechanism associated with reproductio which was subject to natural selection. The word genetics wasn't around at that time, but once discovered, it matched the mechanism requirements implied by evolution by means of natural selection.

It allowed some level of variation from generation to generation even while traits were being passed on.

Had genetics not harbored the potential for mutation and mixing and crossover, then it wouldn't have been a good match for what the theory implied.

Now let's go through your posts point by point. Why don't you tell us why your oft cited "tornado in a junkyard" is not a good analogy for evolution, and then explain to us why you bring it up so often even if you know that it's a bogus analogy.

The exact opposite of what you tried to imply. You said evolution predicted that organisms PASS ON their traits.

The problem with the 'tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747' analogy is that it is too generous to evolution.

In fact evolution goes so far as to predict that their descendants will have completely new organs, biological systems, chemical processes hitherto unknown and completely novel body plans.

real life wrote:

The exact opposite of what you tried to imply. You said evolution predicted that organisms PASS ON their traits.

That's three times now that you've selectively ignored the context of the original quote and focused on a single sentence, even after I pointed out to you where you were being blind.

You don't read very well RL.

And that was my point when I said there were no weaknesses in the theory.

Just because we lack detail in certain areas does not imply weakness in the basic theory. Quite the contrary, we have lacked detail since Darwin published the idea, and in every case when we have found the details, they have strengthened the basic theory.

Genetics is the best example. Evolution predicted that organisms passed on their traits, but how? A genetic function of some type was predicted by the theory, and later confirmed (in excruciating detail).

rosborne979 wrote:

Just because we lack detail in certain areas does not imply weakness in the basic theory. Quite the contrary, we have lacked detail since Darwin published the idea, and in every case when we have found the details, they have strengthened the basic theory.

I also said this in the same post:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Just because we lack detail in certain areas does not imply weakness in the basic theory. Quite the contrary, we have lacked detail since Darwin published the idea, and in every case when we have found the details, they have strengthened the basic theory.

Do you think Genetics doesn't strengthen the basic theory?

And just because something is already recognized (inheretance), doesn't mean that it can't be predicted by a theory. Predictions aren't invalidated just because they are already observed, they are still functions of the theory.

For instance, I predict that you will continue to mince words and dodge around the basic issues while you spew your propaganda on creationism. Just because we've seen that behavior before, and just because everyone already knows it doesn't mean that I can't still predict it.

You certainly are determined to stretch the meaning of 'prediction' , aren't you?

In short, the upshot of evolutionary theory is to 'predict' the opposite of what you said it predicts.

It's obvious you guys are not arguing from the same premises

We shall soon see who is fast and loose.

I've been searching the thread and can't find what I am lookng for; but somewhere it seems that the concepts of evolution, science and religion have been personalized, if that is the right word.

Neither science nor religion can do anything.

neologist wrote:

I've been searching the thread and can't find what I am lookng for; but somewhere it seems that the concepts of evolution, science and religion have been personalized, if that is the right word.

Neither science nor religion can do anything.

What do you mean?

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

I've been searching the thread and can't find what I am lookng for; but somewhere it seems that the concepts of evolution, science and religion have been personalized, if that is the right word.

Neither science nor religion can do anything.

What do you mean?

What do you mean 'What do I mean'?