What is Evolution? Lets define it

[leroy]

Like it or not that is evolution. If you don't understand the definition of terms that is not my problem.

But at least you remembered variation this time around.

Yes that is evolution , together with many other things . like most words evolution has many different meanings.

Why don't you support your claims instead if just playing semantics?

Show that That 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

Call it evolution or give it an other name who cares!! .....

 

[leroy]

It is only part of evolution. But you are trying to refute evolution, and you can't do that with people that are explaining how life evolved. In Darwin's time we knew much much less about biology so some of the details of the theory were bound to be wrong. That does not mean that Darwin was wrong in arguing that life evolved.

Tell me, why did you start with failed and dishonest scientists?

An other atheist thing: Inability to answer a question with a simple yes or No.

The fact is that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists.

Do you grant this fact ? Yes or no?

If you grant this fact then we agree and we can end this discussion, if you answer no the please provide your evidence.

 

[leroy]

Tell me, why did you start with failed and dishonest scientists?

I don't think I did,

 

[leroy]

Only creationists are bound and determined to join evolution to Darwin. He went a long way in explaining it, but he was far from the last word.

No one calls gravity "Newtonianism". And since Newton has been show to be wrong in some of the details no one denies gravity. It is a weak debating tactic to tie a scientific fact to a man and then try to claim the fact is false because the man was wrong in some of the details.

The term darwinism was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (an evolutionist)

And it is widely used in books, scientific articles, conferences etc. Only fanatic atheist from YouTube believe that the term is inapropiate

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is evolution , together with many other things . like most words evolution has many different meanings.

Why don't you support your claims instead if just playing semantics?

Show that That 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

Call it evolution or give it an other name who cares!! .....

Nope, not playing your silly games. You tipped your hand already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An other atheist thing: Inability to answer a question with a simple yes or No.



If you grant this fact then we agree and we can end this discussion, if you answer no the please provide your evidence.

Have you quit beating your wife yet?

Answer with a simple yes or no.

Do you understand how you continue to fail at being honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The term darwinism was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley (an evolutionist)

And it is widely used in books, scientific articles, conferences etc. Only fanatic atheist from YouTube believe that the term is inapropiate

When you can keep your word we can continue.

 

[leroy]

Have you quit beating your wife yet?

Answer with a simple yes or no.

Do you understand how you continue to fail at being honest?

I am just asking a simple and honest question.

Do you agree on that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists? This is a simple yes or no question

I am not comiting the loaded question fallacy as you dishonestly implied.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes that is evolution , together with many other things . like most words evolution has many different meanings.

Why don't you support your claims instead if just playing semantics?

Show that That 98% of scientists would say that it is uncontroversially true that all the diversity of life is a product of random inheritable change and natural selection.

Call it evolution or give it an other name who cares!! .....

Do you include sexual selection in that? Genetic drift? Do you allow for some epigenetics?

 

[Polymath257]

I am just asking a simple and honest question.

Do you agree on that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists? This is a simple yes or no question

I am not comiting the loaded question fallacy as you dishonestly implied.

Yes, it is the primary way that diversity is generated. There are other mechanisms being discussed. But, for example, epigenetics is, to say the least, controversial. Genetic drift is well-recognized. Do you consider it to be outside of mutation and natural selection?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok so let's do 1 claim at the time.


Quote from your source:


That is not your burden. What you are suppose to show is that 98% of scientists belive that darwinism is uncontroversially true.

You have to show that they grant that the diversity of life is mainly due to random change and natural selection.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

The modern view of mutation and natural selection is fairly different than what Darwin discussed because he knew little about genetics. But yes, around 98% or working biologists would say that mutation and natural selection are the dominant ways that diversity arises in life. There are more minor ways whose weights are being discussed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just asking a simple and honest question.

Do you agree on that the mechanism of random (unguided) variation and natural selection is just one of many possible mechanisms that are currently being discussed amoung scientists? This is a simple yes or no question

I am not comiting the loaded question fallacy as you dishonestly implied.

Nope, that is not the case, but at least you seem to realize that you were asking loaded questions.

as you have shown multiple times you do not understand the science that you deny. As a result any "gotcha" question that you try to ask is dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is the primary way that diversity is generated. There are other mechanisms being discussed. But, for example, epigenetics is, to say the least, controversial. Genetic drift is well-recognized. Do you consider it to be outside of mutation and natural selection?

He appears to be grasping at straws. Earlier be tried to use the failed arguments of Sanford and Behe to argue against evolution. Now he is trying to use refinements in the theory against the concept. It makes no sense to me.

 

[exchemist]

The definition of evolution is that monkeys give birth to humans.

Idiot.

 

[exchemist]

Only creationists are bound and determined to join evolution to Darwin. He went a long way in explaining it, but he was far from the last word.

No one calls gravity "Newtonianism". And since Newton has been show to be wrong in some of the details no one denies gravity. It is a weak debating tactic to tie a scientific fact to a man and then try to claim the fact is false because the man was wrong in some of the details.

I have noticed over the years that one characteristic of creationists is to assume that science treats the writings of Darwin the way they themselves treat holy scripture. They miss the point that scientific theories develop and are not bound to the ideas of any individual scientist.

Another characteristic (on display in this thread) is a dishonest rhetorical trick which works as follows:
a) equate the modern theory of evolution with something called "Darwinism",
b) find something in Darwin's original writings, 150yrs ago, that modern science does not support,
c) conclude from this that the modern theory of evolution is discredited.
Anyone spot the flaw in that?

A third characteristic of creationists is to assume that a scientifically literate audience is going to be as stupid as one of their own congregations, and will fall for the above!

 

[leroy]

When you can keep your word we can continue.

Continue? What for?


If you can't answer a simple question,

Nope, that is not the case, but at least you seem to realize that you were asking loaded questions.

as you have shown multiple times you do not understand the science that you deny. As a result any "gotcha" question that you try to ask is dishonest.

From.wiki

A loaded question or complex questionfallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Which unjustified assumption am I making with my question? ,........why don't you simply answer the question and apologize for wrongly accusing me for comiting this fallacy?

 

[leroy]

I have noticed over the years that one characteristic of creationists is to assume that the science treats the writings of Darwin the way they themselves treat holy scripture. They miss the point that scientific theories develop and are not bound to the ideas of any individual scientist.

Another characteristic (on display in this thread) is a dishonest rhetorical trick which works as follows:
a) equate the modern theory of evolution with something called "Darwinism",
b) find something in Darwin's original writings, 150yrs ago, that modern science does not support,
c) conclude from this that the modern theory of evolution is discredited.
Anyone spot the flaw in that?

A third characteristic of creationists is to assume that a scientifically literate audience is going to be as stupid as one of their own congregations, and will fall for the above!

All I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community with regards to the mechanisms responsable that explain the diversity of life .

 

[leroy]

Do you include sexual selection in that? Genetic drift? Do you allow for some epigenetics?

Sexual selection would be a part of natural selection.

If you conclude that the eye (and most other organs and systems) evolved mainly due to genetic drift or epigenetics then the darwinian thesis would be wrong.

Darwinists wouldn't deny that genetic drift and epigenetics are possible and can ocurre every once in a while, but they would render this mechanisms as secondary , they would say that the main source of change and diverity is random change + natural selection (and sexual selection)

The only point that i am making is that darwinists might be correct but their thesis is controversial and widely discussed In the scientific community.

 

[leroy]

I have noticed over the years that one characteristic of creationists is to assume that the science treats the writings of Darwin the way they themselves treat holy scripture. They miss the point that scientific theories develop and are not bound to the ideas of any individual scientist.

Another characteristic (on display in this thread) is a dishonest rhetorical trick which works as follows:
a) equate the modern theory of evolution with something called "Darwinism",
]

Ok and what is the modern theory of evolution? Does random genetic change and natural selection account for most of the diversity of life?

 

[exchemist]

All I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community with regards to the mechanisms responsable that explain the diversity of life .

Of course. There is always controversy in any field of science that is advancing. But that is not all you are saying.

You are claiming the theory of evolution: "mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc.", is "highly speculative". This is quite obviously untrue, seeing that observational evidence is at the very heart of all science. The evidence comes from such diverse fields as palaeontology, plant and animal breeding by man, bacteriology, oncology, embryology and genetic science. We could spend the next week going through it all - but we won't, as it is all on the web for anyone genuinely interested in reading about it.

You appear to be engaging in a rhetorical exercise, in which you try to use the perfectly normal controversy around new proposed refinements and extensions to the theory to discredit the whole thing. That won't wash with an intelligent audience.