Evolution has never been observed

[Acim]

The entire page you talked about with homologies was a list of observed characteristics (ie. more details on the definition of) homologies have: Shared structure, shared relationship, shared development. These are not features that analogous structures have.

Okay, so this is you addressing what you said earlier:

So you read a section on what a homology is.... and you dismiss the definition and say they don't explain what a homology is?

How are the two connected? First you said I dismiss the definition, now you are saying - to be honest I'm not sure what you're even saying. But clearly you are backing off the claim that alleged I dismissed the definition.

Here (post #269) is where I addressed the area that you were quoting from. Feel free to let me know which part of what I said you are having trouble with.

Thanks.

 

[painted wolf]

Post 277.... They are discussing what makes them homologus and one of your first statements is:

Does not explain what makes them homologous. But tautology is good like that.

When it does in fact state what makes them homologous... through the whole page.

And no, I'm not backing off my statement that you dismissed the definition. Because that is exactly what you are doing.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

There are plenty of philosophies and a few theosophies that are very good about admitting when something is not known.

You're doing it again. When biologists state that the species concept has fuzzy edges, they are not trying to hide their own ignorance about said concept, they are stating a known and demonstrable fact about it. In much the same way, when physicists say you cannot simultaneously know the position and the momentum of an electron, they are not 'fessing up to their own ineptitude - they are describing something intrinsic to the nature of the electron.

A lack of clear-cut edges is similarly intrinsic to the nature of species.

 

[outhouse]

for me there is nothing worse then ignorance trying to outshine known valid knoweldge.

its rather pathetic

 

[Acim]

Post 277.... They are discussing what makes them homologus and one of your first statements is:

Does not explain what makes them homologous. But tautology is good like that.

When it does in fact state what makes them homologous... through the whole page.

In fact it doesn't state what makes them homologous. I'll quote it again since apparently you are willing to do that.

Biologists use a few criteria to help them decide whether a shared morphological character (such as the presence of four limbs) is likely to be a homology:

Same basic structure
The same bones (though differently shaped) support the limbs of mice and crocodiles. In the illustration of forelimbs at left, homologous bones are colored alike.

So, let's scrutinize this since apparently you disagree with my claim that this is saying of the same thing twice in different words.

- criteria is used to help decide, whether
- shared morphological characters (i.e. structure of the internal parts like bones and organs.)
- is likely to be a homology
> Now homology is not defined in the material, while homologous (traits) is: inherited from a common ancestor
>> So we are referring to traits (or characteristics) that are shared (thus likely preconceived as similar) and have identifiable form, with understanding that this will help decide if organism had common ancestor.

- mice and crocodiles have similar bones that support limbs
- the material references a diagram where it is already determined these bones are homologous.
> It doesn't explain what makes these particular bones homologous. Other than to imply (in not very rational way), that because they have similar bones supporting the limbs, they have common ancestry.

And no, I'm not backing off my statement that you dismissed the definition. Because that is exactly what you are doing.

And your failure to show this is entirely on you. Go ahead and find me the definition within the material for 'homology.' I do not believe you will, and is why I consulted another source for that.

I truly believe the post you are more interested in criticizing me for is #269, and not #277. But as long as you are on 277 only, it will be, I think, easier for me to refute your misguided claims.

 

[Acim]

When biologists state that the species concept has fuzzy edges, they are not trying to hide their own ignorance about said concept, they are stating a known and demonstrable fact about it. In much the same way, when physicists say you cannot simultaneously know the position and the momentum of an electron, they are not 'fessing up to their own ineptitude - they are describing something intrinsic to the nature of the electron.

In one case (physics) you are talking about the ambiguity of phenomenon (knowing position and momentum), in the other case, you are talking about a concept.

Furthermore, I didn't previously state nor I don't think imply that this is about 'fessing up to ineptitude.' I stated before: There are plenty of philosophies and a few theosophies that are very good about admitting when something is not known. That isn't fessing up to ineptitude. Instead, it is other disciplines admitting that mere concepts on rather large scope data (i.e. God) is not something that is (fully) known. Several of these same disciplines strike me as fairly informed about the concepts, and to date, in some of those, I have not seen a better explanation / description for the concept.

A lack of clear-cut edges is similarly intrinsic to the nature of species.

Both metaphysically and how I understand the (true nature of) physical sciences, this doesn't surprise me, even a little.

I only doubt this spin (slightly) when I encounter proponent of TOE who shows up to me more or less as dogmatic. But you can from this point on take that with a grain of salt since I am speaking from personal experience, and right now you have nothing that will refute what I know I've experienced. And next time it comes up for me, which I anticipate to be before end of 2011, possibly before end of Sept., I'll give you example of what I am referring to.

Added: I'm doing my best to add the "whole concept of species isn't clear-cut" commentary to other threads in this sub-forum. Obviously, if you are reading this sentence, you know what I'm up to. But I'm doing what I can to serve it up on silver platter, that I trust one not following this thread will, how you say, take the bait.

 

[painted wolf]

In fact it doesn't state what makes them homologous. I'll quote it again since apparently you are willing to do that.

So, let's scrutinize this since apparently you disagree with my claim that this is saying of the same thing twice in different words.

- criteria is used to help decide, whether
- shared morphological characters (i.e. structure of the internal parts like bones and organs.)
- is likely to be a homology
> Now homology is not defined in the material, while homologous (traits) is: inherited from a common ancestor
>> So we are referring to traits (or characteristics) that are shared (thus likely preconceived as similar) and have identifiable form, with understanding that this will help decide if organism had common ancestor.

- mice and crocodiles have similar bones that support limbs
- the material references a diagram where it is already determined these bones are homologous.
> It doesn't explain what makes these particular bones homologous. Other than to imply (in not very rational way), that because they have similar bones supporting the limbs, they have common ancestry.

Read the rest of the page!

And your failure to show this is entirely on you. Go ahead and find me the definition within the material for 'homology.' I do not believe you will, and is why I consulted another source for that.

I already did.

I truly believe the post you are more interested in criticizing me for is #269, and not #277. But as long as you are on 277 only, it will be, I think, easier for me to refute your misguided claims.

You are taking a small part and ignoring the rest. This is classic cherry picking.

They go on to explain that not only are they structurally similar, but they are in the same relationship to other bones and developmentally the same (and thus genetically the same). The whole page is the definition, not just the little piece you choose to focus on.

See this is what is wrong with your "analysis"... you are not looking at the whole description but focusing on small incomplete parts. Thus you are missing the whole point. You are essentially complaining that a leaf does not explain a tree when the leaf is still connected to the whole plant and needs to looked at as part of the whole.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I only doubt this spin (slightly) when I encounter proponent of TOE who shows up to me more or less as dogmatic. But you can from this point on take that with a grain of salt since I am speaking from personal experience, and right now you have nothing that will refute what I know I've experienced. And next time it comes up for me, which I anticipate to be before end of 2011, possibly before end of Sept., I'll give you example of what I am referring to.

That is fine, you will no doubt find proponents of ToE on message boards like this one who will misstate or misunderstand the concept of species. But that is of no relevance. The fact is that if you understand the basic concept of the theory of evolution you will understand that it makes certain predictions. And one of those predictions sort is that it is be difficult and in some cases impossible to sort biological organisms into distinct categories. You will inevitably find some individuals who do not understand this, but that does not mean there is some major flaw in the theory, nor does it change the facts.

 

[elmarna]

ACIM--Sounds like you need to clearly define each aspect of your perspectives before makeing a stand.
WOW!
Better you than me!
Gave me a nose bleed just looking at it!
here is a hankie.
when you get on the school bus do not let these guys sit near you!

 

[Acim]

Read the rest of the page!

I already did. And wrote a post on it. I'll take this response as mild concession that you really didn't have much of a claim on the first part, and are now looking for me to scrutinize (yet again) the other part of the page.

You are taking a small part and ignoring the rest. This is classic cherry picking.

I quoted the entire page. I addressed comments to the entire page. And because of your misguided attempts here, I've now read the entire page about 3 times.

They go on to explain that not only are they structurally similar, but they are in the same relationship to other bones and developmentally the same (and thus genetically the same). The whole page is the definition, not just the little piece you choose to focus on.

Again, I quoted the whole page previously. What this is saying, is:

- same bones support limbs
- limb bones are connected in similar ways
- limb buds in all tetrapods develop in similar ways
- these criteria help tentatively identify reliable indicators of shared ancestry

> And I am saying (have said) this isn't explaining what makes these characteristics derived from a common ancestor. It is saying these organisms have similar morphological characteristics. To which I earlier said:

the deck is stacked to find what we expect to find based on preconceived notions.

While there is a little fit of defensiveness around this point, I'm not clear why. It is factual, and is something I'm already passed. It isn't destroying the theory or downgrading it. At least not in way I understand things.

See this is what is wrong with your "analysis"... you are not looking at the whole description but focusing on small incomplete parts.

Disagree, and is matter I'm open to debate for as long as I go on. I read the whole material, then I go back and scrutinize it in way I have been doing.

Thus you are missing the whole point. You are essentially complaining that a leaf does not explain a tree when the leaf is still connected to the whole plant and needs to looked at as part of the whole.

That's one way of looking at what I'm up to in this thread. You stick to that as it will be fun to counter that for awhile. I assure you, the 'whole point' is not being missed by me.

 

[Acim]

That is fine, you will no doubt find proponents of ToE on message boards like this one who will misstate or misunderstand the concept of species. But that is of no relevance. The fact is that if you understand the basic concept of the theory of evolution you will understand that it makes certain predictions. And one of those predictions sort is that it is be difficult and in some cases impossible to sort biological organisms into distinct categories. You will inevitably find some individuals who do not understand this, but that does not mean there is some major flaw in the theory, nor does it change the facts.

Agreed.

Though like all things debate, the speakers of one side can be construed as representatives of that argument.

Kinda like how we hold creationist explanations to those who (poorly) argue the points, when it doesn't change fact that God exists.

 

[painted wolf]

They explain that when they talk about how inheritance works.

In any regards we are chasing our tails here.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

Agreed.

Though like all things debate, the speakers of one side can be construed as representatives of that argument.

Kinda like how we hold creationist explanations to those who (poorly) argue the points, when it doesn't change fact that God exists.

But the creationists arguments put forth by professional creationists (meaning those who do it full time for a living) are no less absurd and misinformed than the arguments put forth by armatures. It is the professional creationists who give creationism such a dirty name. Sometimes you will encounter an amateur creationist who is just honestly misinformed, but otherwise intelligent and rational. But the professional creationists are all either incredibly dishonest or absolutely loony-toon nuts. I am sure that sentence strikes you as an unfair generalization, but I stand by it. All professional creationists are either dishonest, or insane.

But let me also say that the poor, disgusting, dishonest or insane arguments of creationists have no relevance to the question of whether or not “God” exists. Personally I am an atheist, but I do have a great deal of respect for many theists, and for many theistic traditions. I would never want to even imply that all theists are nuts, that is just not true.

 

[korneld]

And I mean ALL of you. First of all, you religious people. You think that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong, because according to the Bible the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not a Christian, but I'm familiar with the Bible and I have never seen that written anywhere in there.

The reason is why that is a popular notion with a lot of Christians is that once upon a time there was a monk who attempted to add up the time line in the Bible. I forget his name, but he was the one who came up with the 6,000-year figure. The problem is that there are several instances in the scripture where linearity seems a little forced, like siblings having to had reproduced together to keep humanity going. I think it's more likely that the text was manipulated to suite the needs of whoever thought they had the right to change it around.

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God. Isn't that a little leap in logic? You seem so high on intellectualism, yet you forget one basic tenets of the scientific method. No evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Or, it would if we have already managed to find what is at the root of everything. No will even venture a guess at this point. There is no reason to think why consciousness shouldn't be it.

 

[painted wolf]

What about us non-Christian (and Christian) theists who are also biologists and study evolution?

wa:do

 

[Storm]

And I mean ALL of you. First of all, you religious people. You think that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong, because according to the Bible the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not a Christian, but I'm familiar with the Bible and I have never seen that written anywhere in there.

The reason is why that is a popular notion with a lot of Christians is that once upon a time there was a monk who attempted to add up the time line in the Bible. I forget his name, but he was the one who came up with the 6,000-year figure. The problem is that there are several instances in the scripture where linearity seems a little forced, like siblings having to had reproduced together to keep humanity going. I think it's more likely that the text was manipulated to suite the needs of whoever thought they had the right to change it around.

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God. Isn't that a little leap in logic? You seem so high on intellectualism, yet you forget one basic tenets of the scientific method. No evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Or, it would if we have already managed to find what is at the root of everything. No will even venture a guess at this point. There is no reason to think why consciousness shouldn't be it.

Wow. That was sad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God.

Name a single example of anyone here saying that. Or in fact, anyone almost anywhere who makes such a claim.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God. Isn't that a little leap in logic?

The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity.

(You might want to read through the thread a little before posting baseless accusations.)

 

[outhouse]

And I mean ALL of you. First of all, you religious people. You think that the Theory of Evolution must be wrong, because according to the Bible the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not a Christian, but I'm familiar with the Bible and I have never seen that written anywhere in there.

The reason is why that is a popular notion with a lot of Christians is that once upon a time there was a monk who attempted to add up the time line in the Bible. I forget his name, but he was the one who came up with the 6,000-year figure. The problem is that there are several instances in the scripture where linearity seems a little forced, like siblings having to had reproduced together to keep humanity going. I think it's more likely that the text was manipulated to suite the needs of whoever thought they had the right to change it around.

I don't have a lot of love for you so-called skeptics either. You conclude that evolution is a fact, so there is no God. Isn't that a little leap in logic? You seem so high on intellectualism, yet you forget one basic tenets of the scientific method. No evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Or, it would if we have already managed to find what is at the root of everything. No will even venture a guess at this point. There is no reason to think why consciousness shouldn't be it.

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!!!!


All of us???? wow what a wide sweeping generalization.


You dont have love for anyone do you?



the belief in god has nothing to do with the facts regarding evolution.





evolution is not up for debate, its both fact and scientific theory that has been observed. Its taught as higher learning in EVERY major university, while creation has been outlawed from schools.












lets teach YOU! about the book and people your defending. You do know ancient hebrews are only 3,250 years old. Before this time there was no hewbrew anywhere, period.

semetic people started gathering in the holy land about 1250 BC. At that time they had no writing skills of their own. the oldest writing of theirs goes back to about 1000BC when a archeologist found a pottery shard with writing on it. Next one of the first books of the bible roughly 50 years later, the author of this book used Elohim as their god figure. Within another 50 ish years another book was written this time using the Yahweh god. These are the first two books which were later edited and compiled into one book and attributed to moses hundreds of years after these first two books were written.


If you have a valid point I would love to discuss history with you

 

[Acim]

They explain that when they talk about how inheritance works.

In any regards we are chasing our tails here.

I am not sure what you're saying. I understand the phrases, but as your earlier statements seemed out of step, so do these.