47 replies to this topic

[iSilurian]

La, on 03 October 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

But evolution wasn't 'understood' to exist in a certain way indefinetely, because it's not a phenomena we witness by experiments that relate to fixed realities such as the analogy of the gravitational theory. We can't experience it in other words. So we can't simply resort to revising evolutionary history when a homosapien skull dates back earlier than the neanderthal skull. Our further research would be merely ideological, fixed on preconceptions without any impartiality in the quest for the truth.  So again I say:

Sorry, i dont know what you mean.  "evolution wasnt understood to exist in a certain way indefinitely"...Well, understanding our lineage is understanding evolution in a certain way, and it relating to our lineage demonstrates that it does occur indefinetely, or atleast it has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years.  You said there is not a phenomena we witness by experiments that relate to fixed realities.  I assume you know about mutation rates and how evolution is observed, so im not sure what you mean by that one.  Then you mention something about not being able to revise anything based on skull locations.  Well, the skulls dont really appear in places not already predicted, so its not like anything is really changing.  They do abide by the laws we know, and regardless, building independent paleo trees, is just what one field does, it isnt necessarily evolution when you find, for example you may find a fish, and then 100 million years later you may find a fish like your original, now it has legs.  It doesnt necessarily mean the fish evolved, its just the order of the fossils.  But the fact that they match other orders of other independent fields is what draws power to the theory.  There is no preconception going on when i find bones in a certain rock and i write down the orders of them.  Nor is there any preconception when you can relate them to geographic landscapes or viral infections or yadda yadda.  Theyre independently created simply by observation, not of improvisation.

In regards to your micro and macro statement, micro has indeed been witnessed first hand, so its nice to hear that you recognize it, but the assimilation of phylogenetic trees from a great number of fields of science essentially prove macro evolution.  Perhaps not darwinian, but common descent none the less.

If i can make a phylogenetic tree based on viral insertion points which identically matches the fossil record, then i cant really argue with such simple and obvious logical conclusions that are evolutionarily based.

Edited by iSilurian, 04 October 2011 - 01:32 PM.

[iSilurian]

baradar_jackson, on 04 October 2011 - 02:45 AM, said:

iSilurian, what's your point?

You always run around making threads like this.

What's your point?

"Look at this ignorant muhajabah try to go up against this mighty journalist backed by practical sciences. Look at Islam's weakness in the face of this irresistible force." Is that your point? If it is, just shut up and go away. Nobody is gonna watch these videos, and even if they do they are not going to be affected by them.

wow, that wasnt my intent.  If you took it that way, then thats on you.  The point is, its a pretty cool situation.  Two people of varying backgrounds start out as opposition, bump heads, only to find that the true issue is not eachother, but the hordes who take their sides to the next level.  The two people come together not only through recognition of science, but also through recognition of the garbage that people believe today.  On one side we have these people jumping to arms to argue for the muslimah, assuming potholer is just some atheist assaulting her, meanwhile on the other side you have all of these hateful islamaphobes.  But in the end, logic, reason and science triumph.

Brought together in harmony, truth, and agreement.

doesnt get much better than that.  Also, both of them have some cool videos.  Potholer is one of, maybe 5 or 6 youtube people who actually make legitimately educational/entertaining videos.  If you dont like it, thats fine, you dont need to get all bent out of shape over me mentioning them.

Edited by iSilurian, 04 October 2011 - 01:39 PM.

[iSilurian]

Maula Dha Mallang, on 04 October 2011 - 05:59 AM, said:

Darwins theories suck. someone mind telling me how we evolved a double circulatory blood system instead of a single one from fish, ill renounce islam right now. either it works perfectly from the start, or it doesnt and the being dies. there is no room for "transition stages".

Actually, fish have their simple circulatory system, its single looped, mammals have their double circulatory system with two separate sides of the heart keeping the two oxygenated and non oxygenated blood separate.  Fish evolved to amphibians, then amphibians to reptiles, then reptiles to mammals, and so, we should be able to find a cross between the single and double looped systems within reptiles and amphibians.

And we do.  In amphibians and reptiles you do find partially separated and inefficiently separated oxygenated and non oxygenated blood.

You should pick up the book, your inner fish, by neil shubin.  He talks a great deal about the relations of humans to fish with respect to our evolutionary lineage.  For example, our nervous system is a hot mess, because it has been stretched away from its original fish like position.  When people get hernias, its because, and pardon the terminology, our testicles are moving down from our chest where they originally were during the age of fish.  The human inner ear, and really, the bones within our head, develop from tissues, i imagine youve heard this, the tissues of a human fetus, are identical to the tissues of a fish, and both sets of tissues form related parts of the head.  As we grow, we develop certain parts of our ear and jaw, these parts hold relations to our respiratory system as opposed to the fish gill respiratory system in which fish use them.  Our hair, is developed by the same proteins that fish use to develop their scales.

And there are plenty of other examples.  Mainly though, this isnt a question of, whether or not there are intermediates.  We know there are intermediates.  The question is, how many mutations or how efficiently would those mutations have to occur to create the intermediate stages.

Micheal Behe, who is a prominant creation institute microbiologist also has a book called Darwins Black Box, which he talks about just this.  He recognizes common descent and intermediate stages, but he as a microbiologist believes that darwinian evolution itself is wrong.  He believes that the intermediate stages appear too abruptly and consist of too many complex groupings of mutations to simply have been by chance.

He believes that evolution is not occurring by chance, but rather it is occurring in a way that is more complex than people think.  He argues that we have been created in a way which promotes large jumps in evolution not by chance, but systematically to create complex organisms.

So yea, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin and Darwins Black Box by Micheal Behe.  Both of these books together break this subject down 1000 times better than we could on this website.

And just for icing on the cake, you dont have to renounce Islam just because ive given a basic breakdown of intermediates.  There is a book called Islams Quantum Question.  Top Islamic Scholars here in the states recommend it because it speaks about ways in which Islam and modern science can come together.  They are not in conflict unless you want them to be.

Edited by iSilurian, 04 October 2011 - 02:19 PM.

[Lanatin]

What the hell happened to my post?!

This derp website keeps on failing to connect on my computer, all those paragraphs for nothing >

*sigh* Guess i'll have to start all over again...

Quote

Sorry, i dont know what you mean. "evolution wasnt understood to exist in a certain way indefinitely"...Well, understanding our lineage is understanding evolution in a certain way, and it relating to our lineage demonstrates that it does occur indefinetely, or atleast it has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. You said there is not a phenomena we witness by experiments that relate to fixed realities. I assume you know about mutation rates and how evolution is observed, so im not sure what you mean by that one.

What I meant was is that it's a fixed reality, a sort of metaphorical 'constant' that has existed throughout our planet's history. All of humanity can experience it, it's always there. It's a reality as easily provable as the reality of all monosaccharides being reducing sugars. And i'm aware of mutation rates, yes. However that's not relavant to the faulty analogy of the gravitational theory.

Quote

You said there is not a phenomena we witness by experiments that relate to fixed realities

*facepalm* I didn't say that. At all.

Quote

In regards to your micro and macro statement, micro has indeed been witnessed first hand, so its nice to hear that you recognize it, but the assimilation of phylogenetic trees from a great number of fields of science essentially prove macro evolution. Perhaps not darwinian, but common descent none the less.

Phylogenetic trees prove common descent for different groups of biological species, i'm not denying that. It wouldn't essentially prove common descent for all organisms on this planet simply due to common charactaristics in our flipping genome.

If you can provide any further insight from your profession, please do (admittedly i'm still a student).

Edited by La'nat Ma Man, 04 October 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[iSilurian]

La, on 04 October 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

What I meant was is that it's a fixed reality, a sort of metaphorical 'constant' that has existed throughout our planet's history. All of humanity can experience it, it's always there. It's a reality as easily provable as the reality of all monosaccharides being reducing sugars. And i'm aware of mutation rates, yes. However that's not relavant to the faulty analogy of the gravitational theory.

fair enough

La, on 04 October 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

*facepalm* I didn't say that. At all.

haha, sorry

La, on 04 October 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

Phylogenetic trees prove common descent for different groups of biological species, i'm not denying that. It wouldn't essentially prove common descent for all organisms on this planet simply due to common charactaristics in our flipping genome.

I assume that when you say  "it wouldnt necessarily prove common descent for all organisms", youre referring to humans (thats usually the only organism that people find controversial for...fairly clear reasons).

I would argue that in regards to humans we have just as much if not more evidence for our own lineage, than we have for other biological species.  And with that, i wouldnt see any reason to deny the evidence for our own lineage and not others...unless i were influenced by a religion of a sort or something.  Because of our young age in history, we have a very large collection of hominid fossils, and geographically...well im sure you know the general things.  The fossil record hands down is in depth with hominid fossils, and phylogenetic trees, in regards to things like our DNA are built based on the mutational differences between us and other organisms.

When genomes are sequenced, its not simply similarities in DNA which make us appear to be related to other living things, its the differences that show our relatedness.  The differences as we know are created by mutations, therefore if the phylogenetic trees are built based on the differences caused by mutations, then we logically must have evolved.  If the DNA phylogenetic tree matches with the fossil tree, which matches with other trees, then we know that the data is true and...yea.  You know what i mean.

If this isnt a discussion about human evolution, most people probably wouldnt care.  Have you heard of the phylogenetic tree formed by endogenous retroviruses by chance?  Or, even ken millers speech on chromosome 2? If not you should check them out, its good stuff.

La, on 04 October 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

If you can provide any further insight from your profession, please do (admittedly i'm still a student).

Im a student as well, a geologist by study and research.   Most of what i know comes from a handfull of classes, a handfull of books, and a lot of sitting around reading research .  In my own research, i work with invertebrates.

[JimJam]

I just cant take people who dont believe in evolution seriously. When you reject science you are left with shallow pseudo-science.

However to take what you little you know as the only possible truth and refusing to see that reality is always far greater than what we know is also absurd.

[bi_ithnillaah]

Maula, I wouldn't be so quick to make judgements about what is or isn't possible. Ever heard "with God, all things are possible"? I believe that includes evolution - though the extent of evolution is unclear and isn't something we can really know.

Edited by bi_ithnillaah, 07 October 2011 - 11:27 PM.

[Servidor]

JimJam, on 06 October 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

I just cant take people who dont believe in evolution seriously. When you reject science you are left with shallow pseudo-science.

See - this to me is immensely problematic. You do not take someone seriously if they do not accept a particular inductive explanation of biological origins? Ludwig Wittgenstein. Arguably the most intelligent man of the twentieth century. He rejected the theory of evolution, along with Freudian psychoanalysis. But while the latter has largely lost vogue and been left behind or at the very least modified as work in the field went on, the former has an entire field almost dedicated to upholding it even though the state and nature of the evidence remains much the same as it was when Wittgenstein criticized it. The comparison of Darwin to Freud I think is quite good. Freud's influence and the way in which his views (the monolithic unconscious and it's domineering influence on the life of men, the alleged sexual provenance of otherwise and obviously non-sexual things and ectera) were taken up at the time and vehemently defended, often caricaturing it's opponents as either stupid or retrograde - offer obvious parallels for those interested in the history involved.

Why should the theory of evolution be the very criterion between intelligence and folly? Why should this particular theory be raised and held above critique and above alternatives? The like does not occur with any inductive theory in any other field. Take cosmology. You are not a priori not to be taken seriously if you reject the Lemaitre standard model. Rather there are very many alternatives aimed at explaining the same body of data, which is otherwise wanting an explanation. Indeed, in the field alternatives are encouraged. In both cases, ultimate origins and biological origins, the theories in question are not entailed by the data - quite rather the theories are attempts to explain the data. But only evolution is above alternative.

And why would any alternative a priori be pseudo-science? Petitio principii. And again - this never happens in, as our example, cosmology. The same field holds competing explanations as disparate as causative collapsing black-holes, inflations, many worlds and imaginary numbers. No accusations of pseudo-science, even though most of them go well beyond the strictly empirical. As does the theory of evolution. I do wonder if they shall ever get past this stifling atmosphere when it comes to biological origins and begin to seriously consider and put forward alternative natural explanations.

Quite off-topic though. I opened a thread some time ago that was vetoed, if anyone would like to carry the discussion.

Edited by Servidor, 08 October 2011 - 06:46 AM.

[iSilurian]

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

See - this to me is immensely problematic. You do not take someone seriously if they do not accept a particular inductive explanation of biological origins? Ludwig Wittgenstein. Arguably the most intelligent man of the twentieth century. He rejected the theory of evolution, along with Freudian psychoanalysis. But while the latter has largely lost vogue and been left behind or at the very least modified as work in the field went on, the former has an entire field almost dedicated to upholding it even though the state and nature of the evidence remains much the same as it was when Wittgenstein criticized it.

Well, there will always be nay sayers, however few they may be.  I would say though that, evidence of today is not what it was 60 years ago when Ludwig died though, nor 90-100 years ago when he was in his prime.

I would agree with JimJam only if were talking about people who are atleast partially exposed to some of the evidence.  Its easy for people not familiar with science or with the theory to not believe it.  And for that, i dont lose too much respect for them.  However for the very very few who exist today, who have been exposed to certain aspects of science and who still reject them, especially if its the theory of evolution, i would lose respect for them.  Now, realistically ive never met any person like this in real life, and over the internet i think ive only come across maybe 1 or 2 out of the thousands ive ran into over the internet, so these people are rare, but they do exist.

Someone said something earlier in this thread about rejecting "macro evolution".  For people in this forum, i would not judge them only because im willing to bet there are a handful of concepts they have not come across. Normal people, most normal people dont keep up with the most modern of scientific jargon and details, and we need to be realistic and realize that during our discussions.  Moving on.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Why should the theory of evolution be the very criterion between intelligence and folly? Why should this particular theory be raised and held above critique and above alternatives?

I do wonder if they shall ever get past this stifling atmosphere when it comes to biological origins and begin to seriously consider and put forward alternative natural explanations.

Evolution, darwinian evolution is not above alternative, but the concept of common descent, no offense, but it just about is.  No scientist would ever say science is 100% proven, but for the sake of discussion, its 99% beyond reasonable doubt, truth.  We dont prove things, but we know when certain concepts contain room for an update, and when they most likely do not.

If a person offered me a trillion dollars to disprove common descent, i honestly wouldnt waste my time.

However, darwinian gradual evolution, in my opinion can be legitimately argued against, at least to a degree.  Its like arguing the reality of gravity verses the reality of general relativity.  Nobody argues that gravity is not real, we argue with how gravity is described.  Nobody argues with the reality of evolution, we just argue the details.

This isnt like the old days of Galileo where people shun outsiders for criticizing the status quo, Were in the age where we actually know what were talking about and we have hard backed research behind various theories.  With that said, those who challenge the status quo in some cases could be lunatics depending on what theyre arguing against.

[Servidor]

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Well, there will always be nay sayers, however few they may be.  I would say though that, evidence of today is not what it was 60 years ago when Ludwig died though, nor 90-100 years ago when he was in his prime.

The evidence remains exactingly as it was when he criticized it as a thin basis for endorsing the theory with the force that men had and continue to. It is an inductive theory. It has explanatory power. The evidence has not increased - but rather more data has been interpreted to accord with the theory, because it is a neat explanation of the origin of things without reference to anything outside of the things themselves. I am beyond confident that Wittgenstein would still have rejected the theory of evolution were he alive now and was whatever age it is you believe to have been his prime. Because his comments still hold true of the state and nature of the evidence for the theory.

I mentioned him principally to demonstrate how foolish it would be to take men seriously or not accordingly as they accept or reject the theory of evolution. Few men of the twentieth century can lay claim to be taken seriously more than Wittgenstein. That should say something of the theory as well, in that he rejected it.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

I would agree with JimJam only if were talking about people who are atleast partially exposed to some of the evidence.  Its easy for people not familiar with science or with the theory to not believe it.  And for that, i dont lose too much respect for them.  However for the very very few who exist today, who have been exposed to certain aspects of science and who still reject them, especially if its the theory of evolution, i would lose respect for them.  Now, realistically ive never met any person like this in real life, and over the internet i think ive only come across maybe 1 or 2 out of the thousands ive ran into over the internet, so these people are rare, but they do exist.

I find this remarkable. Lose respect for them. But fortunately you have never actually met such a person - never had to exercise the right of anathema. When it comes to denying or rejecting the Creator to Whom men owe their existence more truly than to their parents and upon Whom they depend for life more than air: do not be intolerant. Has no bearing on whether you should respect someone or not, how one should see them or one's attitude toward them. But if they do not believe in this particular inductive theory of biological origins? Clearly they have done something such that they do not deserve to be respected.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Someone said something earlier in this thread about rejecting "macro evolution".  For people in this forum, i would not judge them only because im willing to bet there are a handful of concepts they have not come across. Normal people, most normal people dont keep up with the most modern of scientific jargon and details, and we need to be realistic and realize that during our discussions.  Moving on.

Your posts are remarkably condescending. Again - mark the phrase here. "I would not judge them". Who has the right to judge men and why would whether or not they accept the theory of biological evolution be the criterion by which they should be judged? You do not do this infrequently either; speak of the theory of evolution in religious terms.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Evolution, darwinian evolution is not above alternative, but the concept of common descent, no offense, but it just about is.  No scientist would ever say science is 100% proven, but for the sake of discussion, its 99% beyond reasonable doubt, truth.  We dont prove things, but we know when certain concepts contain room for an update, and when they most likely do not.

The data can be interpreted easily in ways that exclude common descent and yet account for what could be taken to indicate it. That is the whole issue here. It is all inductive. You cannot prove common descent for the simple reason that it allegedly occurred in the past. All we have is hypotheses and presently only one. When we have several then must look at probability. And of course, as you said, in any event there is never going to be certainty. Makes one wonder what then is the point. Certainly nothing to judge men over. Not cause to neglect the things for which men shall be judged.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

If a person offered me a trillion dollars to disprove common descent, i honestly wouldnt waste my time.

It is not a matter of proving or disproving. It is a matter of interpreting a body of data in ways that attempt to explain that data. Common descent is one possibility. Doubtless things could be said for it. What I have noted however is that it is not the only possible explanation. If biologists began to take alternatives seriously and to re-consider the data afresh - new theories, doubtlessly, could be put forward. Some might prove more attractive or even likely than common descent; might better explain some things now anomalous and explain others now inexplicable. We do not know because when it comes to biological origins - no one tries. And it is deliberate. It cannot be the force of evidence - because it is inductive science. The data is neutral. The alleged phenomena unobservable and not repeatable. The same data is therefore susceptible to different interpretations aimed at explaining it. As in cosmology.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

However, darwinian gradual evolution, in my opinion can be legitimately argued against, at least to a degree.  Its like arguing the reality of gravity verses the reality of general relativity.  Nobody argues that gravity is not real, we argue with how gravity is described.  Nobody argues with the reality of evolution, we just argue the details.

Gravity is perfect. Arguably marks the triumph of the Newtonian hypothetico-deductive method that is the precursor of induction. One could very easily argue that gravity does not exist on strictly empirical grounds. Why is it believed that gravity exists? Because otherwise some phenomena are inexplicable. But gravity could just as easily go the way of the aether; in fact it still does not fit into quantum mechanics. Who shall say? Einstein overturned the whole of the Newtonian universe except gravity and the laws of motion and the like. But the theory of evolution involves the same kind of science as gravity. It has explanatory value. But, in my opinion, it is considerably more dispensable than gravity. It is not some posited force that renders what we know explicable. It is a theory of origins - like any of the cosmological models I alluded to. A possibility. Should be one among others - like the cosmological models I alluded to.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

This isnt like the old days of Galileo where people shun outsiders for criticizing the status quo, Were in the age where we actually know what were talking about and we have hard backed research behind various theories.  With that said, those who challenge the status quo in some cases could be lunatics depending on what theyre arguing against.

In the age where we actually know what we are talking about. Hard backed research. I do wonder what they shall say in five hundred years about this age; where we know what we are talking about and have the hard backed research.

You have some raw data. Some unobservable thing that you wish to allege occurred in the past (excluding quite permanently direct observation). The raw data does not entail any given explanation or scenario that could be alleged to account for the origin of biological life. So what you have is limited observation and unlimited interpretation. And you want to limit the field of biology to that one preferred interpretation?

Again - in no other field does this occur.

Edited by Servidor, 08 October 2011 - 10:28 AM.

[iSilurian]

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

The evidence has not increased - but rather more data has been interpreted to accord with the theory

Thats simply not true, people were not discussing chromosome 2 and the retroviral trees in the early 1900s.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

I find this remarkable. Lose respect for them. But fortunately you have never actually met such a person - never had to exercise the right of anathema. When it comes to denying or rejecting the Creator to Whom men owe their existence more truly than to their parents and upon Whom they depend for life more than air: do not be intolerant. Has no bearing on whether you should respect someone or not, how one should see them or one's attitude toward them. But if they do not believe in this particular inductive theory of biological origins? Clearly they have done something such that they do not deserve to be respected.

Sure it does.  Now obviously i treat people in a civil manor, but if someone is a fundamentalist lunatic, then yes i generally have a low opinion of their mindset.  Pardon me if that sounds too "elitist" for you.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

The data can be interpreted easily in ways that exclude common descent.

I disagree, how else could one interpret the unity of independent phylogenetic trees if not through common descent?

On another note though, your posts are very...ah ill just give an example.

"You have some raw data. Some unobservable thing that you wish to allege occurred in the past (excluding quite permanently direct observation)."

ok so, we have thousands of research papers on data.  We have observable evolution in todays time, and we claim that it occured within the past just as we claim the sun has risen and set in the past.  So what exactly are you trying to say?  Maybe there is a philosophical point youre trying to make?  I dont know, either way its very unclear.  I am not you, so if you could be more clear i would appreciate it.

Then you said
"The raw data does not entail any given explanation or scenario that could be alleged to account for the origin of biological life. "

Well, evolution really isnt about the origin of biological life, so i really dont know what to say.  Then you make a conclusion.

Edited by iSilurian, 08 October 2011 - 01:23 PM.

[Servidor]

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Thats simply not true, people were not discussing chromosome 2 and the retroviral trees in the early 1900s.

It is true. Simply so. It is the same kind of evidence as the fossil record. You have just broadened your scope since the 1900s. If you wish to come out and state that the science involved is no longer strictly inductive - come out and say it and then prove it.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Sure it does.  Now obviously i treat people in a civil manor, but if someone is a fundamentalist lunatic, then yes i generally have a low opinion of their mindset.  Pardon me if that sounds too "elitist" for you.

This is nonsense. You do not judge people or respect them turning upon whether they accept or do not accept a particular inductive theory of biological origins. If you do - it shows merely how high you incorrectly hold that theory.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

I disagree, how else could one interpret the unity of independent phylogenetic trees if not through common descent?

Independent but common environments perhaps. Similar conditions and not a single source. Take an example. Helmets. In war men need helmets. Most civilizations therefore produced helmets quite independently of one another to meet this common need. It would be awkward to draw up a chart of helmets from different times and peoples and civilizations arranging a hierarchical order of descent for the origin of helmets. Common conditions accounts for men making helmets - not a single proto-helmet that set off a chain of helmet making across humanity. What they have in common is owed to conditions - not descent.

Men knew that tree was a genus and that species were classes of the same genus well before Darwin. How did the world work before your sun rose? Why did it take until Darwin if it is so evident? This is what I mean. So far as I can tell - you have just taken the same line of thought from the fossil record to plants and genetics. You hunt similarities and insist they involve common descent. They do not necessarily. That is one possible interpretation of the data. How does one justify the step from interesting similarities to undeniable empirical fact? I do not see that one can and that is beside that the nature of the theory makes it impossible. It is inductive.

I find a common biological ancestor, some organism arising in a single place in just so conditions less likely than, say, some primordial diversity. Why should life arise in the right conditions from a single organism or strain of organism? Why would it not be like when it rains heavily and hundreds of different plants spring up at the same time? Common features can be accounted for by other means than descent. As I said - environment. Perhaps all things that hold across living organisms are owed to like conditions (even if independently and at varying times of actual occurrence) - the most basic and telling being the limits set by the kind of life that can survive on this planet. Perhaps there is a common descent but it is limited to genus and does not trace back to a single biological source for all things but rather involves instead that each genus has it's own original source. Perhaps the original conditions were so different from what we see now that we could never conclude how from what is observable. Perhaps the relevant molecular mechanisms have become extinct.

Biologists if they really tried and were interested could probably do better and employ the background knowledge that I do not have.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

On another note though, your posts are very...ah ill just give an example.

"You have some raw data. Some unobservable thing that you wish to allege occurred in the past (excluding quite permanently direct observation)."

ok so, we have thousands of research papers on data.  We have observable evolution in todays time, and we claim that it occured within the past just as we claim the sun has risen and set in the past.  So what exactly are you trying to say?  Maybe there is a philosophical point youre trying to make?  I dont know, either way its very unclear.  I am not you, so if you could be more clear i would appreciate it.

As if the number of research papers makes something true. You have molecular mutations and minor acclimatization (moths and who knows what other marvelous heaven shattering discoveries since I last paid attention). I do not doubt such things occurred within the past. But it would be a very different thing to say that all life has a common descent because of them. That is a very different step to take and one which would be strictly inductive. Not the only possible interpretation of the data.

Again - the comparison of common descent to the sun rising? The sun rising is not an explanation of some body of data. It is empirical, observable and repetitious fact. Common descent is one possible interpretation of some raw data aimed at explaining that data. The two are hardly on the simplistic par that would please you. You were closer when we were speaking of gravity.

iSilurian, on 08 October 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Then you said
"The raw data does not entail any given explanation or scenario that could be alleged to account for the origin of biological life. "

Well, evolution really isnt about the origin of biological life, so i really dont know what to say.  Then you make a conclusion.

I have used similar phrases since my first post - why have you only decided to correct me here? And what purpose is there in taking someone to task for an error only to not correct them? The theory of evolution is not about the alleged common biological origin of all life? Do set me straight.

Edited by Servidor, 08 October 2011 - 10:14 PM.

[iSilurian]

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

It is true. Simply so. It is the same kind of evidence as the fossil record. You have just broadened your scope since the 1900s. If you wish to come out and state that the science involved is not still strictly inductive any longer - come out and say it and then prove it.

Ok, viral infections pass through independent lineages, all great apes share the same infections, therefore all great apes must be of the same lineage.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

Independent but common environments perhaps. Men knew that tree was a genus and that species were classes of the same genus well before Darwin.

common environments? what is this supposed to mean?  Lets take the fossil records tree, an endogenous retroviral tree, a comparative anatomy tree, and a simply DNA relation tree.  Tell me how these unique fields could possibly be of some sort of "common environment".  That doesnt make any sense.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

This is what I mean. So far as I can tell - you have just taken the same line of thought from the fossil record to plants and genetics. You hunt similarities and insist they involve common descent. They do not necessarily. That is one possible interpretation of the data. How does one justify the step from interesting similarities to undeniable empirical fact? I do not see that one can and that is beside that the nature of the theory makes it impossible. It is inductive.

i hunt similarities? No, the similarities are all that anyone has ever come across.  Theres a difference.

Servidor, on 08 October 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

I find a common biological ancestor, some organism arising in a single place in just so conditions less likely than, say some primordial diversity. Why should life arise in the right conditions from a single organism or strain of organism? Why would it not be like when it rains heavily and hundreds of different plants spring up at the same time? Common features can be accounted for by other means than descent. As I said - environment. Perhaps all things that hold across living organisms are owed to like conditions (even if independently and at varying times of actual occurrence) - the most basic and telling being the limits set by the kind of life that can survive on this planet.

why are you talking about abiogenesis? what in the world are you trying to discuss?

We clearly are on two completely different pages of discussion.  I have no clue what youre trying to say half the time you say it, and based on your responses i can tell you dont know what im saying either.  Im done here.

Edited by iSilurian, 08 October 2011 - 10:20 PM.

[Servidor]

You are right. We are on very different pages. You are speaking of viruses. I thought you were literally referring to trees. I had not read about this before. So viruses pass through independent lineages and are species specific. "Trees" have been constructed to facilitate comparison and based upon similarities between species they argue species are related and ultimately believe that it would go back to a single source. Common descent. Do I have this correct?

If so - it is still as I said. You are just carrying the same line of thought from the fossil record but to viruses now. Similarities. I cannot see how one can make the step from interesting similarities to undeniable empirical fact. And you cannot. This is inductive science. The empirical part is the actual observing of the viruses. Interpretations of the viruses and their implications for biological origins - this is inductive. Limited data - unlimited interpretation. Can retroviruses be construed as evidence for common descent? Yes, obviously. Is that the only possible explanation? Is no other interpretation of the data possible? No. It simply cannot be so. It is inductive science.

Now I was not actually trying to put forward an alternative theory myself. I was merely illustrating how one might go about proposing alternatives. By thinking about it. Along lines other than those suggested by presupposing the theory of evolution. Biologists concerned with origins, like cosmologists and other scientists whose work is principally inductive, could interpret the same data differently and so put forward alternative explanations. Retroviruses do not and cannot prove that all life derives from a common ancestor. From what I have read so far - no one even claims it is so. It is taken, like the fossil record and molecular mutations and the other prior evidences, as "strongly indicating" common descent. It is just more similarities added to similarities. Similarities allow of different explanations than common descent.

Similarities. As I have said - the state and nature of the evidence remains much the same as when Wittgenstein criticized it. And it is going to remain the same always because of the kind of science it involves. It is an inductive explanation.

And I still do not see why it should ultimately go back to a single source. The viruses are diverse and are distributed over different species. Even though there are similarities between some species - how is the ineluctable conclusion therefore one single common source of all living organisms? How does this follow? Why could there not have been a primordial diversity? Like conditions produce like things. Presumably the viruses are not exempted. They thrive in some conditions, could not exist in others and so on. Why do retroviruses not fit as well in a theory of common environment as they do in the theory of common descent? Particularly when we are speaking of the supposed earliest stages; when all life was allegedly molecular. Do not and have not all great apes lived in common environments? Why could not the viruses have arisen independently in suitable conditions in different places over time? Or a diversity of them (perhaps not even those we have now or not as we now have them) simultaneously in the right conditions - as different plants at the same time after heavy rain? It seems to me that common descent is simply the preference. It is just to interpret the data in Darwinian terms. Again - this is only to illustrate how we could think about the data differently.

But the theories biologists themselves could propose if they were interested and would take alternatives seriously. But they do not. And it is deliberate. So much I have said.

In the end, as I have repeated over three posts now, the theory of evolution is an inductive explanation of a particular body of data (fossils, genes, viruses and species in general). It is not entailed by the data. The data is neutral. It is rather an attempt at explaining the data. The explanation can be accepted or rejected on it's merits but cannot be proven certainly, for it involves a claim concerning the past. The data is therefore always open to alternative interpretation or explanation.

The problem is that unlike in other fields with similar bodies of data wanting an explanation, when it comes to biological origins - no one puts forward any alternatives. The theory of a common biological origin via evolution is raised and held above critique and above alternative. The field, so far as origins are concerned, is basically subservient to it. Dedicated to upholding it. Of no other theory in any other field is this true. And yet it is exactly the same kind of science as ultimate origins in cosmology and physics (for example). Again, another comparison might be helpful. Look at fresh work on lower-level particles. None of the research is deliberately put to the service of any particular model of origins. Even though recent work might tend prima facie to best fit one or another particular cosmological model - no vocal "consensus" comes out insisting that it must be interpreted that way. Why is it so with the viruses?

In any event - my original point was that it is foolish to not take men seriously if they do not accept the theory of evolution.

Edited by Servidor, 09 October 2011 - 03:15 AM.

[satyaban]

La, on 02 October 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

I can't see an open way for a debate to spring from this.


Youtube is retarded, and the lady in the hijab isn't bad looking either lol.

I lol'd at the phrase 'Islamic female' btw.

You are right, she is not bag looking, I mean there's nothing a few thousand dollars or euros couldn't fix like her nose.

alradhiya, on 03 October 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

^ Even I'm checking her out now, and I'm a female

Well, what do you think?

[Basra]

Refuting the deception of "evolution" aka evil-lution:

http://www.abovetops...hread163678/pg1  "Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible"

http://www.harunyahy...cialpreface.php "The Evolution Deceit" by Harun Yahya

Edited by Basra, 09 October 2011 - 03:59 AM.

[JimJam]

Basra, on 09 October 2011 - 03:59 AM, said:

Refuting the deception of "evolution" aka evil-lution:

http://www.harunyahy...cialpreface.php "The Evolution Deceit" by Harun Yahya

What makes Huran Yahaya an authority on evolution?

http://ngm.nationalg...1/fulltext.html



Also Muslim Scientists like Nasiraddin Tusi who was also a Shia believed that living organisms change over time. So did Aristotle. These views did not make them believe in the absence of divinity and turn them into total materialists
http://azer.com/aiwe...es/92_tusi.html

Edited by JimJam, 09 October 2011 - 05:38 AM.

[iSilurian]

Servidor, on 09 October 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

You are right. We are on very different pages. You are speaking of viruses. I thought you were literally referring to trees. I had not read about this before. So viruses pass through independent lineages and are species specific. "Trees" have been constructed to facilitate comparison and based upon similarities between species they argue species are related and ultimately believe that it would go back to a single source. Common descent. Do I have this correct?

Well, i was referring to phylogenetic trees, And yes youre correct.   Basically, if i create a unique tree based on the fossil succession, and i make a unique tree based on viruses contained in organisms and the two trees turn out to be identical, then its a pretty straight forward picture.  If organisms contain the same left over viral markers, it shows us that those who have it, received it from a common ancestor.  If we construct a tree using these markers and it is identical to the tree of fossils, then we have an understanding of the timing in which each branch of the tree proceeded.

There really isnt any room for interpretation, or rather, like you said, its "strongly indicative".  Very strongly.

Servidor, on 09 October 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

If so - it is still as I said. You are just carrying the same line of thought from the fossil record but to viruses now. Similarities. I cannot see how one can make the step from interesting similarities to undeniable empirical fact.  Can retroviruses be construed as evidence for common descent? Yes, obviously. Is that the only possible explanation? Is no other interpretation of the data possible? No.

What other explanation could there be? and on top of that, we have this phylogenetic tree which remains identical across a large number of fields of science.  Yes its inductive to say that there is a 99.99% chance that we share a common ancestor.  And yes its true, if i really wanted to, i could believe that a magic sandwhich descended from the heavens to insert viruses into animals to make them appear "as if" they share an ancestor.  But most people wouldnt bother.  If you believe its unreasonable, then thats kind of on you.

Servidor, on 09 October 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

From what I have read so far - no one even claims it is so. It is taken, like the fossil record and molecular mutations and the other prior evidences, as "strongly indicating" common descent. It is just more similarities added to similarities. Similarities allow of different explanations than common descent.

Its not really "just" a similarity though.  If i give a women an infection and she passes it to her children, when i see the children shareing the virus, im not simply saying "the children have similar infections", because its more than just similarity, its an identical shared trait from the women who gave birth to them.  It just so happens to match up with our other phylogenetic trees as well, so to believe that it is not what it is...i would say is unreasonable.  Yes maybe a magic sandwich came down and planted the viruses in the children in identical places in their genome, though i dont see any reason to believe that.

My sister and parents all share similarities, but more importantly, we share a lineage that we understand exists through our knowledge of how life proceeds through time.  All were doing with evolution is extending that same knowledge.

If you have another explanation for these things, by all means, propose it.  Most likely no such explanation will ever arise, though youre free to do as you wish.

Then you start talking again about the origins of life itself as opposed to more recent evolutionary processes.

Servidor, on 09 October 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

But the theories biologists themselves could propose if they were interested and would take alternatives seriously. But they do not. And it is deliberate. So much I have said.

They do not, most likely because they cannot.  I dont think anyone has knowledge of anything that could ever topple what is already established.  And there are also things with paleogeography and comparative anatomy.  Its not that i simply choose to not look for alternative explanations, its just that, there is really only one logical conclusion.  And we could still say, hypothetically, maybe in the future we would learn about those magical sanwiches that plant viruses in animals, it would still be reasonable to accept what appears unarguably to be true today, untill further knowledge is established.

If i see elephants for example, that have anatomical traits that are independent of other elephant species (African and Indian), and i see that theyre seperated geographically, and i see that both changes have occured recently,   Did the different species of elephant simply spawn from the earth in india and africa after the two lands split?  Its not unreasonable to believe that 2 species of elephants share the same elephant ancestor.  

So, its not that i am not trying, its just that, and im sure you agree here, the most reasonable explanation is that evolution is true.  It is true that nothing in science is proven, and philosophically i couldnt even prove that we werent all created yesterday, however, i would say that we have a good idea of whats going on here, or i would atleast say that its fair to believe it.

Then you go on to talk about the origin of life again.

Servidor, on 09 October 2011 - 02:37 AM, said:

In any event - my original point was that it is foolish to not take men seriously if they do not accept the theory of evolution.

I disagree depending on the persons background.   Most people who do not accept evolution, do not do so on a philosophical basis, nor do they do so on a scientific basis.  If you were to tell me that you did not accept the theory, i would not view your opinion in the same way i would a random person of little knowledge.  Much of the people out here could be said to be ignorant of many things, and when these people make claims, its not really the same as a philosopher making the claim, nor is it the same as a religious fanatic making the claim.

I dont see Micheal Behe as a fool because he does not accept darwinian evolution because i know he has good reason behind how he views things (even though he accepts common descent).  You know just as well as i though, that there are people who believe or even deny concepts in science not because they have strong evidence to do so, and not because they have a philosophical conflict with a certain concept, but rather they do so because theyre caught up in the religious sauce.  I assume you would agree with that.

I think the main difference here is how we (you and I) think about things. You appear to be more on a philosophical page which is fine and i can respect your perception of the situation.

Edited by iSilurian, 09 October 2011 - 10:31 AM.

[.InshAllah.]

Quote

I dont see Micheal Behe as a fool because he does not accept darwinian evolution because i know he has good reason behind how he views things (even though he accepts common descent). You know just as well as i though, that there are people who believe or even deny concepts in science not because they have strong evidence to do so, and not because they have a philosophical conflict with a certain concept, but rather they do so because theyre caught up in the religious sauce. I assume you would agree with that.

You might be interested in a new article Behe wrote here  http://www.evolution...by_t051621.html

http://www.evolution..._new051661.html

[baradar_jackson]

satyaban, on 09 October 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

You are right, she is not bag looking, I mean there's nothing a few thousand dollars or euros couldn't fix like her nose.

Shut up dude.

And stop looking at muhajabahs' noses. It's none of your business.

[comrade]

satyaban, on 09 October 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

You are right, she is not bag looking, I mean there's nothing a few thousand dollars or euros couldn't fix like her nose.

Such an undignified fool.

[Servidor]

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

Well, i was referring to phylogenetic trees, And yes youre correct.   Basically, if i create a unique tree based on the fossil succession, and i make a unique tree based on viruses contained in organisms and the two trees turn out to be identical, then its a pretty straight forward picture.  If organisms contain the same left over viral markers, it shows us that those who have it, received it from a common ancestor.  If we construct a tree using these markers and it is identical to the tree of fossils, then we have an understanding of the timing in which each branch of the tree proceeded.

I do not know enough about the phylogenetic trees presently to speak intelligently about them. Perhaps in a few days time I shall have something to say. But if I understand you here - you mean that comparison of the distribution of retroviruses across species corresponds to the putative fossil succession for those species? I think I have a chart of it now anyway, ordered according to period.

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

There really isnt any room for interpretation, or rather, like you said, its "strongly indicative".  Very strongly.

What other explanation could there be?

Many. And there is plenty of room for interpretation. Apparently several million years of it. There can never be a limit to intelligent interpretations of the same data. That is what makes reading several books on the same subject, other than biological evolution, in any field, other than biology so far as origins is concerned, interesting.

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

They do not, most likely because they cannot.  I dont think anyone has knowledge of anything that could ever topple what is already established.  And there are also things with paleogeography and comparative anatomy.  Its not that i simply choose to not look for alternative explanations, its just that, there is really only one logical conclusion.  And we could still say, hypothetically, maybe in the future we would learn about those magical sanwiches that plant viruses in animals, it would still be reasonable to accept what appears unarguably to be true today, untill further knowledge is established.

See - inductive science does not work like that. Evidence - one logical conclusion. Even when the evidence tends on the face of it to point toward a particular explanation or theory or model - that still is not necessarily the end of it. Take the standard Lemaitre model again. Almost all of the empirical evidence came as direct confirmation of several features specific to that model. Hubble's redshifts and CBR and ectera. One might say that the universe of the standard model was the logical conclusion. But that did not and has not stopped cosmologists and physicists since from proposing alternatives that simply take these things into account as background evidence. Relativistic expansion, increasing entropy and some considerable explosive event in the distant past that appears to be something of a beginning - these things seem to be certain. Established as you would say. But "how" and "why" are still open.

Father Lemaitre S.I. is not given the final say. His opponents and subsequent proposals have not been limited to sandwiches.

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

If i see elephants for example, that have anatomical traits that are independent of other elephant species (African and Indian), and i see that theyre seperated geographically, and i see that both changes have occured recently,   Did the different species of elephant simply spawn from the earth in india and africa after the two lands split?  Its not unreasonable to believe that 2 species of elephants share the same elephant ancestor.

Of course elephants are related. Species belong to their genus. This is not what is in question. The question is whether we and elephants and everything else go back to a single source. This to me is less obvious. That there is a single source of every genus - seems straight forward and even plausible enough. That every living thing is derivative of a single organism? If the common anatomical traits tell in favour of a single ancestor for elephants and other species likewise according to their genus - to me it seems just as obvious that the overwhelming diversity of genera would a priori tell in favour of diversity in their origins. It would be reductionist to say we should suppose an ultimate common descent. And this is what you mean? You keep repeating that I am digressing back to the theory of a common origin of all life. Is this not what talk of common descent means?

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

So, its not that i am not trying, its just that, and im sure you agree here, the most reasonable explanation is that evolution is true.  It is true that nothing in science is proven, and philosophically i couldnt even prove that we werent all created yesterday, however, i would say that we have a good idea of whats going on here, or i would atleast say that its fair to believe it.

I agree that evolution is one inductive explanation that could be true. I agree that so far as observation is concerned - you have a good idea of what is going on. So far as what has gone before is concerned? I do not think that you ever can. It is inductive science. You can always consider alternatives, always interpret the same data differently. You would then assess the hypotheses put forward as explanations of the data. Then we would have to take probability very seriously. And we certainly would not arbitrarily award your preferred hypothesis 99.9% status.

This is what speculative or inductive science is supposed to be. It certainly is in other fields which deal with the same kind of theories (about things alleged to have occurred in the past or things outside of observation or measurement and so on).

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

I disagree depending on the persons background.   Most people who do not accept evolution, do not do so on a philosophical basis, nor do they do so on a scientific basis.  If you were to tell me that you did not accept the theory, i would not view your opinion in the same way i would a random person of little knowledge.  Much of the people out here could be said to be ignorant of many things, and when these people make claims, its not really the same as a philosopher making the claim, nor is it the same as a religious fanatic making the claim.

I see. So it is the reasons for their rejection that would make you take a low estimate of them? I think I know the type you intend here. Protestants.

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

I dont see Micheal Behe as a fool because he does not accept darwinian evolution because i know he has good reason behind how he views things (even though he accepts common descent).  You know just as well as i though, that there are people who believe or even deny concepts in science not because they have strong evidence to do so, and not because they have a philosophical conflict with a certain concept, but rather they do so because theyre caught up in the religious sauce.  I assume you would agree with that.

I do. If you mean that you would not take their opinions about the relevant things seriously - then I could agree. I might conceivably still respect them. I have known many good, stout men who simply do not have a heart for these kinds of things. Who fail to see it as having any practical value or any bearing upon their conduct. Do I still respect them? They would do anything for others. Work harder in a year than six men from the cities in a lifetime. Love and protect their families fiercely. Know more about animals and their habits and the seasons and the clouds than the scientists who name and class them. And they have a sharp sense for what matters. For what is true and what is merely complicated. Men who like a certain fictional people in the Tolkien trilogy, to borrow a thought, know when men are lying because they do not lie themselves. I have known such men. I do not lose respect for them because they dismiss some inductive theory with a motion of their hand. If I did, I should think I have cause to re-consider my priorities and why and to whom I pay respect.

I also do not think it is fair to say that rejecting the theory of evolution on philosophical considerations or scientific grounds is respectable - but to do so on religious grounds is not. You are going to have to lose respect for me - because I do not accept the theory of evolution because I am a Christian. I may be able to articulate my rejection of the theory better and, it is true, even if I were not a Christian I would still insist on all that I have said about the nature of the theory and the viability and absence of alternatives; I honestly would never accept any inductive theory because the criteria for what makes something probable is arbitrary. But I would consider myself in better company with the simple faithful than I would with Wittgenstein. And I am the least respectable of them all. I am giving my entire life for what you think is not even sufficient grounds to reject a theory.

iSilurian, on 09 October 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

I think the main difference here is how we (you and I) think about things. You appear to be more on a philosophical page which is fine and i can respect your perception of the situation.

I thought the same thing yesterday when my face was red for having mistook you for talking about trees. Most of what I had written has been about the nature of the theory involved. This is more the business of the philosophy of science. Your thinking is more grounded in the stuff involved - viruses and fossils.

Edited by Servidor, 10 October 2011 - 04:46 AM.

[iSilurian]

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

I do not know enough about the phylogenetic trees presently to speak intelligently about them. Perhaps in a few days time I shall have something to say. But if I understand you here - you mean that comparison of the distribution of retroviruses across species corresponds to the putative fossil succession for those species? I think I have a chart of it now anyway, ordered according to period.

yes, more or less.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

Many. And there is plenty of room for interpretation. Apparently several million years of it. There can never be a limit to intelligent interpretations of the same data. That is what makes reading several books on the same subject, other than biological evolution, in any field, other than biology so far as origins is concerned, interesting.

I disagree.  In regards to rational options aside from common descent, i cant imagine an explanation aside from it that would match the evidence we have.  Maybe i have a weak imagination though.  But now reading over your entire response, my answer is in regards to common animals that exist today and those well known to have existed post-domain microbiological process aged events.  I hope that makes sense.  When i say that i cannot think of a rational explanation aside from common descent, im not referring to pre cambrian microbial evolution, im talking about post cambrian animalia.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

See - inductive science does not work like that. Evidence - one logical conclusion. Even when the evidence tends on the face of it to point toward a particular explanation or theory or model - that still is not necessarily the end of it. Take the standard Lemaitre model again. Almost all of the empirical evidence came as direct confirmation of several features specific to that model. Hubble's redshifts and CBR and ectera. One might say that the universe of the standard model was the logical conclusion. But that did not and has not stopped cosmologists and physicists since from proposing alternatives that simply take these things into account as background evidence. Relativistic expansion, increasing entropy and some considerable explosive event in the distant past that appears to be something of a beginning - these things seem to be certain. Established as you would say. But "how" and "why" are still open.

well yes, how and why can be asked for anything really. Though whats established is established.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

Of course elephants are related. Species belong to their genus. This is not what is in question. The question is whether we and elephants and everything else go back to a single source. You keep repeating that I am digressing back to the theory of a common origin of all life. Is this not what talk of common descent means?

Ah yes, see i am talking about "species belonging to their genus" and a genus belonging to its family and order.  Orders bring organisms together.  Im not really talking about the origins of life itself though.  Once you leave basic biology and you move to micro biology, youre moving into discussions on material thats much more complicated, and im trying to stop you from doing that, not only because it is not in my interest to discuss it, but also because even if i wanted to, it wouldnt be easy.  Im speaking of well understood evidences in animals and their common descent, i am not here to discuss the microbiology of domains and/or abiogenesis.  For example, i would argue that african and indian elephants are descendents of an older proto elephant, not necissarily that all plants, funguses, archea and all those other domains absolutely come from the same ancestor, simply because im not failiar with microbiology in that way.  Though i may assume some are related, i wouldnt state it as absolute truth nor with confidence.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

I agree that evolution is one inductive explanation that could be true. I agree that so far as observation is concerned - you have a good idea of what is going on. So far as what has gone before is concerned? I do not think that you ever can.

ya sure, assuming you are saying what i think you mean.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

I also do not think it is fair to say that rejecting the theory of evolution on philosophical considerations or scientific grounds is respectable - but to do so on religious grounds is not. You are going to have to lose respect for me - because I do not accept the theory of evolution because I am a Christian.

You stated that often species will be a part of the same genus.  I assume by this you mean that you accept that species of elephants have come about from an ancestral species.  If that is true, then ur fine by me.  If youre skeptical about the origins of life and the soul common ancestor, thats understandable and is also fine by me.  The rejection of the concept of abiogenesis, or even the rejection of the concept of a single common ancestor is not the same as rejection of the theory of evolution, just so we understand what were talking about.

Servidor, on 10 October 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

I thought the same thing yesterday when my face was red for having mistook you for talking about trees. Most of what I had written has been about the nature of the theory involved. This is more the business of the philosophy of science. Your thinking is more grounded in the stuff involved - viruses and fossils.

ya

A theory can cover a vast amount of topics and concepts, the phrase common descent can be common descent between a couple of elephants, with a well understood fossil record and evolutionary history, or it can mean common descent of every last living thing that weve ever recognized to exist.  When i hear common descent or i discuss evolution itself, i normally go with the prior because discussing the latter usually is beyond most peoples credentials and understanding, and it becomes a mess.

Edited by iSilurian, 10 October 2011 - 04:16 PM.