Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I have never claimed any language to be perfect.

And you’re confusing “scientific theories” with definitions and word usages.

Scientists are not disagreeing with definitions or meanings of the some words, nor how words are used, YoursTrue.

What they disagree with, are the theories. Scientists are supposed to be looking at different alternatives (eg different hypotheses), they are supposed to be skeptics. They are supposed to be challenging the data, so they would as much test current accepted theories as they would test new hypotheses.

The strength of any accepted theory, is how well they face rigorous testing, with evidence, experiments & data still verifying the evidence.

For example. As this topic, is about Evolution, is that began almost 200 years ago, in his voyage onboard HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, Charles Darwin explored parts of the world like Argentina, Chile, Galapagos & other islands in the pacific, Australia & South Africa, examining living plants and animals, not fossils (he only really studied fossils after he returned home at the Geological Society (of London) and at museums & universities). he noticed that at islands of Galapagos and the mainland South America as the different species of finches and different species of tortoises. He examined all sorts of wild life and plants in that journey, wrote copiously notes and drew many sketches in his journals. He noticed that different islands nearby to each other (Galapagos) that have different climate patterns and different terrains, can different species of the same plant genera, or different species of finches, or different species of tortoises, can have traits that differ from one another.

Those journals were starting point of his research into speciation, that formed the basis of Natural Selection, one of the mechanisms in evolutionary biology. What he found that he later recorded in On The Origin Of Species (1859) and in other works, that environmental factors, when environment changed, environments are driving forces for change (eg adaptability & speciation).

It has been 165 years since the publication of On the Origin, but since his death, biologists have revised and updated Natural Selection, with new observations, evidence & data, with new testing methodology (eg DNA testing & analysis, morphological analysis, clade taxonomy, etc), and of newer fields in biology (eg modern genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, etc), all of these brought forward Natural Selection into the 21st century. Natural Selection are today, more robust than the times of Darwin and his contemporaries, eg Albert Russel Wallace (another pioneer of Natural Selection), Joseph Dalton Hooker, Thomas Henry Huxley, Gregor Mendel (whom Darwin never knew about, the pioneer of modern genetics).

Biologists and paleontologists don’t deny speciations, what they may disagree with, are mainly classifications of certain species to certain genera or families.

Look at the hyenas for example. They have certain traits and features (especially their behavioural) that are canine-like, but others that are more feline-like. So which would you put “canine” or “feline” carnivore group?

Well, DNA comparisons showed that are actually more closer to feline than to canine. And yet biologists still debate between these 2 sides.

Sometimes classifying organisms are clear cut, but at other times they are not so. But regardless of whether they are for or against one side or the other, they don’t deny speciations in evolutionary biology.

I am basically speaking of the differences of language as well as usage in the same language that can be construed or imagined to mean something other than perhaps (and I use the word perhaps purposefully) the speaker means it.

 

[YoursTrue]

But these things we know them , and they are challenge to us,and you should know that,in History is not like in natural Science , we don't start the same and the rules change.

Your comment reminds me of the article in wikipedia about Darwin and his religious views. Fascinating. Many things I didn't know about regarding Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Very, very interesting.

 

[Dimi95]

Go back in history mate. And you ignored "four words" in your attempt. If four words is "verbiage", even 39 words you toiled to count is a tap. This is the problem with jumping to defend people just out of allegiance. Even hyper religious groups don't.

Ciao.

Allegiance to what?
What do you think is the allegiance for?

 

[firedragon]

Allegiance to what?
What do you think is the allegiance for?

Ciao.

 

[Dimi95]

Your comment reminds me of the article in wikipedia about Darwin and his religious views.

That is the problem , you are concerned with Darwin and his religious views rather then be concerned about the science behind it.

Fascinating. Many things I didn't know about regarding Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Very, very interesting.

It's a promising start , belive me

 

[Dimi95]

Ciao.

**mod edit** i was just interested in your answer and nothing more.
To say what you think for example.

But Ok,Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

**mod edit**i was just interested in your answer and nothing more.
To say what you think for example.

But Ok,Ciao.

Your ad hominem is cheap and I am not interested in discussing with people like you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But these things we know them , and they are challenge to us,and you should know that,in History is not like in natural Science , we don't start the same and the rules change.

No, that is the problem. We do not know if Lourdes works. We know that many people believes that it works. But then many people believe that homeopathy works.

 

[McBell]

Your ad hominem is cheap and I am not interested in discussing with people like you.

Nice try, but the alleged ad hominem was AFTER you bailed tail tucked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your ad hominem is cheap and I am not interested in discussing with people like you.

It is amazing how people misuse the phrase "ad hominem". That is short for ad hominem fallacy and I did not see one there.

 

[Dimi95]

Your ad hominem is cheap and I am not interested in discussing with people like you.

If only you could have read between the lines and understood that is exactly what i expected you to tell and tell me honestly what do you think.
I even discussed some of it with @Subduction Zone , something that i agreed with you.


Chill out , nobody is attacking you , this fake misuses won't help you , trust me.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the problem , you are concerned with Darwin and his religious views rather then be concerned about the science behind it.


It's a promising start , belive me

I'm not particularly concerned -- but I find it very interesting how his religious views changed and the variations in his viewpoints as he grew older.

 

[YoursTrue]

If only you could have read between the lines and understood that is exactly what i expected you to tell and tell me honestly what do you think.
I even discussed some of it with @Subduction Zone , something that i agreed with you.


Chill out , nobody is attacking you , this fake miuses won't help you , trust me.

Your tough and harsh reactions are offsetting. I suggest you try to be a bit more tactful, if that's within your purview. Hey, have a nice day/evening where you're at.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is amazing how people misuse the phrase "ad hominem". That is short for ad hominem fallacy and I did not see one there.

I'm not surprised... hey! have a good one...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not surprised... hey! have a good one...

If you saw one then identify it. I doubt if you can. Please note two others pointed out that there was no such thing either.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you saw one then identify it. I doubt if you can. Please note two others pointed out that there was no such thing either.

Sides are taken, lines are drawn. A man was executed by state decree in the U.S. recently EVEN THOUGH the evidence apparently showed he was NOT GUILTY...yes -- people are drawn to sides, aren't they? g'night now...

 

[George-ananda]

OK, just re-reading this and wondering if "unthinking" processes mean chance or accidental? If I recall, some object to the term accidental when it comes to changes or shifts in the process of evolution.

I would call chance and accidental processes unthinking processes. I would go as far as saying thinking processes involve conscious intent.

 

[Dimi95]

No, that is the problem. We do not know if Lourdes works. We know that many people believes that it works. But then many people believe that homeopathy works.

But we don't have all the evidence and we don't know if one particular will be enough to overpower any other oposite.
We have encountered serious cases , you analogy does not work because Lourdes does not heal what treatment does.

We have many , many unexplained events.

Everyday somebody is digging something up.

This is not selling balls for your kidney , this is actual History review.

Jest check it with anyone you want

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sides are taken, lines are drawn. A man was executed by state decree in the U.S. recently EVEN THOUGH the evidence apparently showed he was NOT GUILTY...yes -- people are drawn to sides, aren't they? g'night now...

And another worthless "So what? argument. Please try to make a valid point. I get tired of silly arguments that are refuted with a "So what?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

But we don't have all the evidence and we don't know if one particular will be enough to overpower any other oposite.
We have encountered serious cases , you analogy does not work because Lourdes does not heal what treatment does.

We have many , many unexplained events.

Everyday somebody is digging something up.

This is not selling balls for your kidney , this is actual History review.

Jest check it with anyone you want

Correct, we do not have evidence enough either way. In such cases the rational approach is a lack of belief.