If Evolution Were True

[OmarKhayyam]

Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE. A prediction made, verified, and one that could not happen if ID was true.

Unless you belong to the Steve Martin School of Theology.:sarcastic

 

[themadhair]

I have been running an evolution model in Linux for a few months now, the program looks for altered code and anomalies and encourages them in a virtual environment.
Sad thing is it has yet to find a string of code that is useful of beneficial in propagating itself.

I’m guessing you forgot the natural selection. It’s a rather crucial component of evolution so you would do well to include it in the simulation.

And in your experiential knowledge is?

My years of educating creationists.

Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE. A prediction made, verified, and one that could not happen if ID was true.

Unless you belong to the Steve Martin School of Theology.:sarcastic

I prefer to use lectures that don’t refer to creationism. When you teach geography you don’t refer to flat earth, when you teach physics you don’t refer to magic etc.

This is pretty good series:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[linwood]

Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE. A prediction made, verified, and one that could not happen if ID was true.

Unless you belong to the Steve Martin School of Theology.:sarcastic

Nice video.

I like this one Miller on the Colbert Report.

http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0020_Miller/talks/colbert-miller.mov

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And in your experiential knowledge is?

My years of educating creationists.

I'm going to nominate this response for the "Top 10 Plays of the Day".

You know, Sandy, lawyers always say that you shouldn't ask a question unless you already know the answer. Sound advice that would have served you well in this instance.

 

[painted wolf]

I meant like down syndrome, if genetic/chromosomal mutation is a normal form of evolution, why are they looking for a cure.
Maybe it's natures way of weeding out the weak, or creating a new form of life.

In very rare cases (at lest among animals) it can prove to be beneficial but usually its non-adaptive. In plants, this is one of the most common ways new species develop. Modern wheat for example is hexaploid (having six sets of chromosomes). The important thing is the whole set of chromosomes are copied.

Down's syndrome for example only copies a single chromosome, rather than the whole set.
It also reduces fertility and thus it doesn't tend to persist in the population.
Most chromosomal abnormalities reduce fertility or cause infertility.

And to me there is a HUGE difference between man mad genetics and natural.

We simply provide stronger and more direct selective pressure.
Even genetic engineering is simply using the same techniques that viruses and bacteria use everyday.

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And in your experiential knowledge is?

My years of educating creationists.

Guilt by association then.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm going to nominate this response for the "Top 10 Plays of the Day".

You know, Sandy, lawyers always say that you shouldn't ask a question unless you already know the answer. Sound advice that would have served you well in this instance.

I already knew the answer. Themadhair had only joined in March '09 and had no direct evidence to deal with. Case closed.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I prefer to use lectures that don’t refer to creationism. When you teach geography you don’t refer to flat earth, when you teach physics you don’t refer to magic etc."

Since the point of the lecture was to explain how and why they won the Dover trial it is a difficult see how the subject of ID could be avoided.

But I guess you know better. Perhaps you should volunteer to do his lectures for him.

 

[themadhair]

"I prefer to use lectures that don’t refer to creationism. When you teach geography you don’t refer to flat earth, when you teach physics you don’t refer to magic etc."

Since the point of the lecture was to explain how and why they won the Dover trial it is a difficult see how the subject of ID could be avoided.

But I guess you know better. Perhaps you should volunteer to do his lectures for him.

You know very well I was referring to teaching the subject you sarky git.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I already knew the answer. Themadhair had only joined in March '09 and had no direct evidence to deal with. Case closed.

Gee, let me think ...

Is it possible that madhair might have educated a few creationists before he joined this site? Is it possible that madhair knows people that you don't?

Case open.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"You know very well I was referring to teaching the subject you sarky git."

I knew no such thing. Nor was it clear from your post.

 

[themadhair]

Speaking of Ken Miller here is a lecture of his. It is over about an hour but if you start at about min 54 you will get a compelling proof for ToE.

I was saying that if you want to teach someone evolutionary theory you should reference creationism at all. You don’t refer to magic when teaching physics for example.

Miller’s talk is great for folks who are interested in the creation/evolution debacle, but isn’t so good if they are interested in learning science. IIRC the lecture was supposed to be a debate between Miller and someone who pulled out which is why it became a lecture on the ID trial.

It is an interesting and informative talk, but teaching science in a manner that makes the student refer to “not creationism” doesn’t give them the best grounding in the subject.

I apologise for my earlier comment. Reading too much into the context I guess.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I was saying that if you want to teach someone evolutionary theory you should reference creationism at all. You don’t refer to magic when teaching physics for example.

Miller’s talk is great for folks who are interested in the creation/evolution debacle, but isn’t so good if they are interested in learning science. IIRC the lecture was supposed to be a debate between Miller and someone who pulled out which is why it became a lecture on the ID trial.

It is an interesting and informative talk, but teaching science in a manner that makes the student refer to “not creationism” doesn’t give them the best grounding in the subject.

I apologise for my earlier comment. Reading too much into the context I guess.

I think schools SHOULD teach religion. Provided that churches devote one hour each Sunday to teach calculus.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Gee, let me think ...

Is it possible that madhair might have educated a few creationists before he joined this site? Is it possible that madhair knows people that you don't?

Case open.

Guilt by association. Case dismissed. Don't make me hold you in contempt.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Guilt by association. Case dismissed. Don't make me hold you in contempt.

Judge has to recuse herself. Case reinstated.

Don't make me revisit Operation Greylord.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Judge has to recuse herself. Case reinstated.

Don't make me revisit Operation Greylord.

You're in contempt. You've forgotten the original accusation. Fifty dollars please.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

OK. Refresh my memory.

 

[eugenius]

Well, as far as my understanding goes, basic building blocks are still necessary to life. For instance, amino acids.

As for other things, if something (even a single-celled organism) is thriving as it is, then it doesn't need to evolve, does it? Viruses and bacteria don't necessarily need to evolve into another life form, because they're fine the way they are. Although they do evolve to become more resistant to drugs, or to become infectious to new species.
With regression....why? What benefit would there be? Evolution is about benefiting whatever species you're talking about by slow changes over generations. If there is no benefit, then it shouldn't be taking place.

Why can't we force it to happen? Well, I would guess that it's simply because we don't know how yet.

From my readings, which isn't very deep..........yet, I understand that we can and have forced evolution to happen in our lifetime, whether it be through selective breeding (dogs horses cows etc), various plants, and we have witnessed diseases/viruses evolve through study.

 

[Sententia]

If Evolution Were True

Then things would be much as they are now. Hmm... Exactly as they are now.... But that would mean... That it is true. Ahh.

Cleared that up.

 

[themadhair]

Then things would be much as they are now. Hmm... Exactly as they are now.... But that would mean... That it is true. Ahh.

Cleared that up.

What would we expect if evolutionary theory, and the idea of common descent, really were true? The following:

1) We would expect the phylogenetic tree of life to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

2) We would expect the genetic tree of life to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

3) We would expect the fossil record to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

4) We would expect the biochemical tree of life to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

5) We would expect the geographical distribution of life to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

6) We would expect the bacteriological tree of life to conform to a strict nested hierarchy.

7) We would expect each of the above to conform to the SAME nested hierarchy.

This same concept of nested hierarchy featured heavily in Kevin Padian’s expert testimony in the Dover trial (although the term ‘nested hierarchy’ isn’t used) which you can get here. This is collectively, to my eyes anyway, the strongest evidence available for evolutionary theory.