APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

Mott the Hoople said:
The problem with definition #2 is that in biological evolution the ontogeny of an individual is not considered biological evolution as individual organism do not evolve. It is the changes that occur within a population that are inheritable via the genetic material wich are considered biological evolution. That important destinction was not made clear in definition #2.

That is also why the correct modern definition of evolutionary theory is stated as "the change in allele frequency within a population over time."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Click to expand...

why don't you use the definition given in the article you cite instead of something worded differently?.....
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, your saying things you can't back up. How do scientist corealate the ultimate orgins of life with evolutionary theory? What are these arguments against the theory of abiogensis? Please answer these two questions and be specific.

You have also failed to answer the question on your claim that Intelligent Design is science. Why haven't you backed this claim up either? Why do you refuse to back up your claim?
Click to expand...

???....and where did I claim that ID was science?.....and, if you bother to read my posts without trying to twist into a statement you can win an argument on, you will see that I said nothing about scientists corelating anything with anything......I said that people who argue the issue on boards like this equate abiogenesis with evolution....so don't waste our time demanding I prove yet another of YOUR statements as if it were MINE.....

now, what do I have against the "theory" of abiogenesis?....first of all, it doesn't qualify as a scientific "theory".....it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis....it is nothing more than speculation....

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.
Click to expand...

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory[/ame]

hopefully, you are honest enough to admit there are NO empirical observations with respect to abiogenesis.....

The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis.
Click to expand...

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis[/ame]

and hopefully, you are honest enough to admit that abiogenesis has never been and never can be tested.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....and where did I claim that ID was science?.....and, if you bother to read my posts without trying to twist into a statement you can win an argument on, you will see that I said nothing about scientists corelating anything with anything......I said that people who argue the issue on boards like this equate abiogenesis with evolution....so don't waste our time demanding I prove yet another of YOUR statements as if it were MINE.....

now, what do I have against the "theory" of abiogenesis?....first of all, it doesn't qualify as a scientific "theory".....it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis....it is nothing more than speculation....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

hopefully, you are honest enough to admit there are NO empirical observations with respect to abiogenesis.....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

and hopefully, you are honest enough to admit that abiogenesis has never been and never can be tested.....
Click to expand...

As you might have guessed, you're wrong. Scientists have observed proteins spontaneously organizing into RNA in a lab. Not only is it a theory, it's been proven to be a plausible one.
 
Southern Man said:
No, the law is a simple mathematical equation to describe its force based on variables of mass and distance. As I stated, that has remained unchanged. Evolutionary theory is still evolving, and likely continue to, forever.
Click to expand...
And so have the three fundamental natural laws supporting natural selection. They may not be expressed as mathematical formula's but they are still laws of nature. These three fundamental laws of nature supporting biological evolution were first published by Darwin have remained unchanged. What has changed is our understanding of the mechanism by which evolution works (i.e. genetics). The same could be said about the Law of Gravity. The theory of relativity and quantum physics have provided astounding insights into how gravity works in the universe that were not known in Newtons time.

In addition, just because a natural law isn't expressed as a mathematical formula has no bearing on it's factual basis. Do you deny that the law of inheritance, the law of variance and the law of superfecundancy are laws of nature? Just like gravity is a law of nature?

Like gravity they are easily observed. Can be easily tested and independently verified. Like the law of gravity they are easily falsifiable in principle but in fact have never been falsified and they have an astronimically high probability of correctness that the law of gravity has. Do you deny this?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why don't you use the definition given in the article you cite instead of something worded differently?.....
"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "
Click to expand...
Why don't you try reading the whole article. That is precisely what was stated. Do you want me to bold it for you?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And so have the three fundamental natural laws supporting natural selection. They may not be expressed as mathematical formula's but they are still laws of nature. These three fundamental laws of nature supporting biological evolution were first published by Darwin have remained unchanged. What has changed is our understanding of the mechanism by which evolution works (i.e. genetics). The same could be said about the Law of Gravity. The theory of relativity and quantum physics have provided astounding insights into how gravity works in the universe that were not known in Newtons time.

In addition, just because a natural law isn't expressed as a mathematical formula has no bearing on it's factual basis. Do you deny that the law of inheritance, the law of variance and the law of superfecundancy are laws of nature? Just like gravity is a law of nature?

Like gravity they are easily observed. Can be easily tested and independently verified. Like the law of gravity they are easily falsifiable in principle but in fact have never been falsified and they have an astronimically high probability of correctness that the law of gravity has. Do you deny this?
Click to expand...

That's not the point. What I deny is that evolution cannot explain the origin of the species, and even if man does figure out the intricacies of development does not mean that he can explain that it all happened by without a designer.
 
ib1yysguy said:
As you might have guessed, you're wrong. Scientists have observed proteins spontaneously organizing into RNA in a lab. Not only is it a theory, it's been proven to be a plausible one.
Click to expand...

dude.....abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of a self duplicating cell.....not only has it not been proven plausible by scientific testing, it's never even been observed occurring naturally.....so unless you can shake out some serious evidence your response is nothing more than a lie.....
 
Southern Man said:
That's not the point. What I deny is that evolution cannot explain the origin of the species, and even if man does figure out the intricacies of development does not mean that he can explain that it all happened by without a designer.
Click to expand...
Well I'm glad to hear you say that you deny evolution cannot explain the origin of the species. I agree with that comment as evolution is a very robust explanation as to the origins of species. As for the designer question, that's an issue completely outside the scope of science.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes....I would like you to show me where that is "precisely" what was stated.....
Click to expand...
There you go dude.


"Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974"
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....and where did I claim that ID was science?.....and, if you bother to read my posts without trying to twist into a statement you can win an argument on, you will see that I said nothing about scientists corelating anything with anything......I said that people who argue the issue on boards like this equate abiogenesis with evolution....so don't waste our time demanding I prove yet another of YOUR statements as if it were MINE.....

now, what do I have against the "theory" of abiogenesis?....first of all, it doesn't qualify as a scientific "theory".....it doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis....it is nothing more than speculation....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

hopefully, you are honest enough to admit there are NO empirical observations with respect to abiogenesis.....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

and hopefully, you are honest enough to admit that abiogenesis has never been and never can be tested.....
Click to expand...
Where have I equated abiogensis with biological evolution? It's you who keeps bringing that subject up. I've not mentioned it once other than to say one has nothing to do with the other.

As for abiogensis, it's certainly a testable hypothesis that is very problematic as a theory as to the origins for life on earth for a variety of reasons. Chief among those is no one really knows what the original conditions were on planet earth when life began. However, if you wish to discuss abiogensis I suggest starting a new thread as it has nothing to do with our present discussion. As for making empirical observations abiogenesis certainly does that. You're confusing the distinction between a hypothesis (which abiogenesis is) and a theory (which abiogenesis is not).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
There you go dude.


"Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974"
Click to expand...

"precisely"?....lol.....gotcha....

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
or
evolutionary theory is stated as "the change in allele frequency within a population over time.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Where have I equated abiogensis with biological evolution? It's you who keeps bringing that subject up. I've not mentioned it once other than to say one has nothing to do with the other.
Click to expand...
and where did I say that I was referring to you?.....I'm glad you recognize abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.....but, more often than not, seculars claim it does....

As for abiogensis, it's certainly a testable hypothesis
Click to expand...
outline a possible test for abiogenesis......

As for making empirical observations abiogenesis certainly does that.
Click to expand...
identify one....

You're confusing the distinction between a hypothesis (which abiogenesis is) and a theory (which abiogenesis is not).
Click to expand...

ah....riiiiiiingerrrrrr.......
Mott the Hoople said:
What are these arguments against the theory of abiogensis?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I knew sooner or later you would demonstrate an ignorance of science. Try to back that statement up, fool.....
Click to expand...

You're misreading him or you're very, very stupid. He said evolution explains the origin of SPECIES. He didn't say the origin of "life." There is a huge, huge difference.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Becuase "the designer" nor his "design" can be validated via the scientific method. That does not preclude the possible existence of said designer but it does place the topic outside the scope of science.
Click to expand...
The same could be said for many non-physical sciences. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top