Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Damn scientists and their word-games! That's because, with all do respect, most people don't know how science actually works. They think they do but they don't. I find that it's usually people without any form of scientific background that shout the loudest about what science is or isn't.

From what I read thusfar, OFNF already accepts the theory of evolution. So, basically the discussion is already over. However, if the conversation progresses as suggested I'm suspecting that this entire conversation will end with an "intelligent designer of the gaps" argument.

How did the eye evolve?
Evidence suggests like this!
How did the brain evolve?
Evidence suggests like this!
How did the blabla evolve?
We don't know!
AHA!!!!!!, blabla definitely has design so an intelligent designer created it!
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sun May 11, 2014 2:10 pm
WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5005Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:MMM that sounds like more word games,


Thanks to years of experience talking to, and reading the contributions of, creationists, it is wise to clarify exactly what is under discussion, particularly the definitions used therein.

The reason is exemplified with the use, by creationists, of the phrase, "it's only a theory!"

Complaining about it is pointless, as I believe most users of this site would prefer participants in a discussion to be on the same page (even if they're using different pens).
Allowing those involved to obfuscate by using different definitions lengthens the time one must spend untangling it later on (for both the audience and the opponent), and makes talking past each other (playing to their crowd so to speak) much easier.

This site actually exists as a place to look at ideas, concepts, and philosophies, take them apart, and throw out the shit ones. No opinion is sacrosanct, and consensus is always subject to change. Being clear about the terms under discussion is very much a necessary part of the conversation.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sun May 11, 2014 2:19 pm
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Prolescum wrote:
dandan wrote:MMM that sounds like more word games,


Thanks to years of experience talking to, and reading the contributions of, creationists, it is wise to clarify exactly what is under discussion, particularly the definitions used therein.

The reason is exemplified with the use, by creationists, of the phrase, "it's only a theory!"

Complaining about it is pointless, as I believe most users of this site would prefer participants in a discussion to be on the same page (even if they're using different pens).
Allowing those involved to obfuscate by using different definitions lengthens the time one must spend untangling it later on (for both the audience and the opponent), and makes talking past each other (playing to their crowd so to speak) much easier.

This site actually exists as a place to look at ideas, concepts, and philosophies, take them apart, and throw out the shit ones. No opinion is sacrosanct, and consensus is always subject to change. Being clear about the terms under discussion is very much a necessary part of the conversation.


Yes that is the kind of word game that harms all the discussions between creationists and evolutionists.

When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.

When a creationist argues that evolution is just a theory the evolutionist has 2 options

1 prove to the creationists that evolution has been proven (acknowledging what he meant by theory)

2 waste time in defining “theory” and explain the proper definition for theory

In my opinion the evolutionist should do option 1




In this case Aron is expected to refute what OFNF calls “evolution” if you don´t what to call it evolution don´t call it evolution, but I think OFNF made clear what he meant.



Aron is not expected to explain how the scientific method works, nor to explain the nature of science, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CHALLENGE. The challenge is not to educate OFNF the challenge is to prove what OFNF calls “evoluton”
Sun May 11, 2014 3:18 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:This is circular reasoning and besides the point.


It is neither circular reasoning nor is it besides the point. It doesn't happen very often that a creationist even knows the most basic definition of what evolution is. More often than not they'll claim it is something like Hovind said (aka his 5 points) or it's something ridiculous like cats giving birth to birds or a human being stepping out of a mud puddle. That's why it's very important we make sure he understands what evolution is before we even start.

Baggi wrote:Once they can agree on the definition of evolution, then AronRa can decide if he wants to accept the challenge or back down.


The answer to that is very easy: If OFNF accepts that evolution is properly defined as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next", then Aron will be able to take on the challenge. If OFNF claims that biological evolution is something else (i.e. one of the things I ridiculed above), then he's obviously fighting a straw man and Aron won't be able to pick up the challenge and will have to school OFNF on the proper definition first.
I don't know if OFNF knows anything about biology, so I'll have to wait till he responds.

Baggi wrote:But it's pointless to say one side doesn't know what something is.


I never said that. Note what I actually did say:
As for the definition, if he does not accept the definition of evolution, then he doesn't know what evolution is.

Baggi wrote:Instead, let's try and listen a little more and be more charitable with those with whom we disagree.


Great. You can dive right in and read what was actually written.

Baggi wrote:When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.


That's the problem though: In science, clearly defining what you mean is of the utmost importance. If we are absolutely rigorous, then neither "atomic theory" nor "evolutionary theory" nor "the germ theory of disease" can be proven, they can only be "not disproven".
Aron has already stepped slightly down from those terms and accepted that you (and OFNF) mean the everyday use of "proven", that is to say "shown beyond the shadow of a doubt".

Baggi wrote:Aron is not expected to explain how the scientific method works, nor to explain the nature of science, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CHALLENGE. The challenge is not to educate OFNF the challenge is to prove what OFNF calls “evoluton”


How can one happen without the other?
Let us imagine that OFNF knows nothing about science. I don't know if it's true and frankly I don't care, I just want to show you something. Let's further say that Aron shows him detailed examples for everything OFNF asks, but OFNF can't appreciate them because he doesn't know what science is. That's not such an extreme example as it has happened quite often already.
Take for example Ken Ham: He doesn't accept what science is because he claims that all people wear a set of "glasses" which a priori bias all knowledge. No matter what evidence I present to him, it won't change his mind because he believes.
Or take Kent Hovind: His 250,000$ challenge can't possibly be won because he's got a twisted definition of what evolution is and he's got a totally distorted definition of what science is. To win his challenge, you'd have to not only evolve humans from single-celled organisms right in front of his eyes (impossible), but you'd also have to show how life arose (not evolution), show how chemicals "evolve" (again, not evolution) and, in fact, make a new universe pop into existence.

That's why being absolutely clear on what we mean by science, the scientific method and biological evolution is so critical in any discussion like this.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Sun May 11, 2014 4:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:
As I predicted, the goalposts have shifted in order for Onceforgivennowfree to hold onto his strawman. By doing this Onceforgivennowfree, you have essentially proven AronRa correct, in that your challenge was never to prove evolution correct (you already accept it, thus AronRa’s job here is done)


Why is his job done?

OFNF has asked for proof of evolution.


AronRa’s job is done because Onceforgivennowfree accepted the definition of evolution AronRa gave, and it is a trivial task to prove that as a fact. It is not my fault (or any other evolutionary proponents’) fault that Onceforgivennowfree did not understand what exactly he was asking for from the beginning.

However, now that it has been established that Onceforgivennowfree’s actual challenge was to explain emergence, this discussion can move forward to the heart of the problem.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 11, 2014 4:15 pm
YIM WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.


Actually, no. I do not know what creationists mean by this. Do they actually reject the accepted definition of evolution, as this creationist did? Do they reject evolutionary theory? Or do they actually accept evolution as it is defined, they just reject deep time, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Because at any given point when a creationist says they reject evolution, they may reject any one of these (and some of them do not have anything to do with biology, let alone evolutionary theory).

I have said this before; semantics is the last bastion of creationism. That is why it is important to get them to agree to terms otherwise they will change definitions, as this creationist did, in order to suit their argument. Thus, please do not be upset when an evolutionary proponent asks for clarification by what you actually reject, because there is history behind creationist not knowing the first thing about evolution and creationist equivocating the term to suit their needs.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 11, 2014 4:33 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Let us imagine that OFNF knows nothing about science. I don't know if it's true and frankly I don't care, I just want to show you something. Let's further say that Aron shows him detailed examples for everything OFNF asks, but OFNF can't appreciate them because he doesn't know what science is. That's not such an extreme example as it has happened quite often already.



If Aron presents scientific evidence, and OFNF doesn’t appreciate it as such, that would be OFNF´s problem, not Aron problem. Aron´s is expected to present his testable and falsifiable evidence; he is not expected to educate OFNF. If OFNF is stupid and bias and he rejects Arons evidence without good reasons for doing so, his honest followers will identify it and will stop following OFNF.
Sun May 11, 2014 4:38 pm
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.


Actually, no. I do not know what creationists mean by this. Do they actually reject the accepted definition of evolution, as this creationist did? Do they reject evolutionary theory? Or do they actually accept evolution as it is defined, they just reject deep time, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Because at any given point when a creationist says they reject evolution, they may reject any one of these (and some of them do not have anything to do with biology, let alone evolutionary theory).

I have said this before; semantics is the last bastion of creationism. That is why it is important to get them to agree to terms otherwise they will change definitions, as this creationist did, in order to suit their argument. Thus, please do not be upset when an evolutionary proponent asks for clarification by what you actually reject, because there is history behind creationist not knowing the first thing about evolution and creationist equivocating the term to suit their needs.


Creationists accept the fact that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc. occur, and can cause “change over time” but creationists would deny that these mechanisms can account for ALL the diversity of life.

I honestly don´t understand why do you have so many problems understanding this.
Sun May 11, 2014 4:44 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Creationists accept the fact that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc. occur, and can cause “change over time” but creationists would deny that these mechanisms can account for ALL the diversity of life.

I honestly don´t understand why do you have so many problems understanding this.


As I pointed out, and you ignored, this creationist did not accept those when he first came to this forum. Thus, stating creationists accept all those as facts is simply a mistake on your part.

Second, if creationists accept all those things, then why do they say things like “prove evolution”? As you point out, some creationists already accept it. Thus, those creationists need to start using the correct terms when entering into a discussion. Otherwise, I cannot tell them apart from the creationists that still reject the observed fact of evolution. If a creationist already accepts evolution, but rejects that evolution alone can lead to the biodiversity of life on earth, then why do they not just say that from the beginning so evolutionary proponents will not confuse them with the ones still rejecting observed facts of biology?

Thus, my problem understanding it stems from some creationists outright rejection of basic facts (such as evolution), and creationists that accept such facts, yet reject one, or more, aspect of evolutionary theory. Simply saying, “Prove evolution” and hoping I (or anyone else) knows what you are talking about is asinine to say the least.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 11, 2014 5:01 pm
YIM WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5005Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

HWIN reflects the reasons behind my position on the topic of clarifying definitions off the bat. It is a necessary evil in this case (as is clear from AronRa's responses).

Sent from my Commodore 64
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sun May 11, 2014 6:01 pm
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:Creationists accept the fact that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection etc. occur, and can cause “change over time” but creationists would deny that these mechanisms can account for ALL the diversity of life.

I honestly don´t understand why do you have so many problems understanding this.


As I pointed out, and you ignored, this creationist did not accept those when he first came to this forum. Thus, stating creationists accept all those as facts is simply a mistake on your part.

Second, if creationists accept all those things, then why do they say things like “prove evolution”? As you point out, some creationists already accept it. Thus, those creationists need to start using the correct terms when entering into a discussion. Otherwise, I cannot tell them apart from the creationists that still reject the observed fact of evolution. If a creationist already accepts evolution, but rejects that evolution alone can lead to the biodiversity of life on earth, then why do they not just say that from the beginning so evolutionary proponents will not confuse them with the ones still rejecting observed facts of biology?

Thus, my problem understanding it stems from some creationists outright rejection of basic facts (such as evolution), and creationists that accept such facts, yet reject one, or more, aspect of evolutionary theory. Simply saying, “Prove evolution” and hoping I (or anyone else) knows what you are talking about is asinine to say the least.


I disagree… If we all understood what OFNF meant with evolution, we should accept the argument even if his wording was not 100% accurate.
Sun May 11, 2014 10:56 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 544Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.

When a creationist argues that evolution is just a theory the evolutionist has 2 options

1 prove to the creationists that evolution has been proven (acknowledging what he meant by theory)

2 waste time in defining “theory” and explain the proper definition for theory

In my opinion the evolutionist should do option 1

In this case Aron is expected to refute what OFNF calls “evolution” if you don´t what to call it evolution don´t call it evolution, but I think OFNF made clear what he meant.
So when the creationist comes along with a straw-man misrepresentation, you want me to defend the fallacy rather than correct his misunderstanding of the topic? No, I'm not doing that. I'm going to correct him, and address what it really is, rather than the twisted distortion of what he thinks it is.

That goes for his misuse of the word, 'theory' too.

Aron is not expected to explain how the scientific method works, nor to explain the nature of science, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CHALLENGE. The challenge is not to educate OFNF the challenge is to prove what OFNF calls “evoluton”
I *am* expected to do that, and I explained at the onset that this would be a necessary part of the challenge. Go back and read the first post in this thread.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun May 11, 2014 11:43 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 544Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

By the way, I got to meet he_who_is_nobody when the Unholy Trinity tour came through Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Image

Just wanted to share the pic, bro.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun May 11, 2014 11:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:I disagree… If we all understood what OFNF meant with evolution, we should accept the argument even if his wording was not 100% accurate.


You keep assuming that we all understood what Onceforgivennowfree meant. I have told you twice that I did not (still rather do not) understand what Onceforgivennowfree meant by his use of evolution. Thus, stop assuming anyone knows what was meant just because you assume you know what was meant. All I know is that Onceforgivennowfree’s use of the word evolution is nonstandard, and I have given examples of a creationist not knowing the first thing about evolution and a creationist using equivocations in order to argue against evolution.

However, this is all beside the point. Onceforgivennowfree has already accepted the standard definition of evolution and the ball is now in his court to respond to AronRa’s questions.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 11, 2014 11:53 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:
dandan wrote:When creationists say that “evolution is just a theory” you know exactly what they mean, you know exactly that they mean that evolution has never been proven. Maybe creationists are not using the correct wording, but you still know what they mean.

When a creationist argues that evolution is just a theory the evolutionist has 2 options

1 prove to the creationists that evolution has been proven (acknowledging what he meant by theory)

2 waste time in defining “theory” and explain the proper definition for theory

In my opinion the evolutionist should do option 1

In this case Aron is expected to refute what OFNF calls “evolution” if you don´t what to call it evolution don´t call it evolution, but I think OFNF made clear what he meant.
So when the creationist comes along with a straw-man misrepresentation, you want me to defend the fallacy rather than correct his misunderstanding of the topic? No, I'm not doing that. I'm going to correct him, and address what it really is, rather than the twisted distortion of what he thinks it is.

That goes for his misuse of the word, 'theory' too.

Aron is not expected to explain how the scientific method works, nor to explain the nature of science, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CHALLENGE. The challenge is not to educate OFNF the challenge is to prove what OFNF calls “evoluton”
I *am* expected to do that, and I explained at the onset that this would be a necessary part of the challenge. Go back and read the first post in this thread.



Well what can I say, I disagree, when it´s clear what your counterpart meant, there is no need to focus on the proper definitions, even if his wording was not 100% accurate.

Let my illustrate my point with an example.

If you challenge me to show evidence that dinosaurs and men coexisted, I would understand what you mean and I would try to show that dinosaurs like T-Rex, Stegosaurus, Triceratops etc. coexisted with men.

It would be dishonest (or at least irrelevant and time consuming) if instead I show evidence that humans and parrots coexist. Even though in the strict sense of the term “dinosaur” parrots are also dinosaurs.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you propose such challenge, I would try to focus on what you actually mean, rather than wasting my time in finding inaccuracies in your wording.
Mon May 12, 2014 12:42 am
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
dandan wrote:I disagree… If we all understood what OFNF meant with evolution, we should accept the argument even if his wording was not 100% accurate.


You keep assuming that we all understood what Onceforgivennowfree meant. I have told you twice that I did not (still rather do not) understand what Onceforgivennowfree meant by his use of evolution. Thus, stop assuming anyone knows what was meant just because you assume you know what was meant. All I know is that Onceforgivennowfree’s use of the word evolution is nonstandard, and I have given examples of a creationist not knowing the first thing about evolution and a creationist using equivocations in order to argue against evolution.

However, this is all beside the point. Onceforgivennowfree has already accepted the standard definition of evolution and the ball is now in his court to respond to AronRa’s questions.


Ok, with that said I apologize, I thought it was clear what OFNF meant, but if it wasent´cclear for you or Aron, then it´s valid to invest some time in clarifying terms
Mon May 12, 2014 12:47 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 544Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Baggi wrote:Why is his job done?

OFNF has asked for proof of evolution.

Let's say for a moment that OFNF completely agrees with AronRa that evolution is real, it exists, and it explains everything.

Now, let's look at AronRa's definition of Proof:

Proof: [legal sense, common vernacular] That which strongly shown to be true according to a preponderance of evidence.


Has the agreement shown by OFNF proven evolution? Of course it hasn't. Just as a handful of students agreeing with their teacher that gravity exists doesn't prove gravity.

No matter how much OFNF may agree with AronRa, it will never lead to proof. Proof is found, as defined above, by showing that which is true according to a preponderance of the evidence.
His challenge was for me to prove that evolution is a fact. The terms of this discussion were that I was to prove that to his satisfaction. If he is already satisfied that evolution is a fact, what more must I do?
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon May 12, 2014 1:27 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 544Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Speaking for myself

Evolutoin (descend with modification + natural selection+ sexual selection + artificial selection+ random genetic drift…) is suppose to explain all the diversity of life.

All the diversity of life includes modern eyes, brains, wings etc. so I would expect Aron to provide evidence that this mechanism can create all this stuff.
You might like to see some of my videos then. The one about eyes is really well-known, anyone can show you that one. Brains probably aren't going to be as interesting as you think. In the image below, the pink bit could be referred to as the 'fish' brain. The red part could be colloquially described as the 'amphibian' brain, and then of course the 'reptilian' brain is indicated in the yellow area. All of these are built on the prior foundation, just as you'd expect with an evolutionary progression, and all are found within the mammalian neocortex.

Image

By the way, pet peeve. You use 100% of your brain. Regulatory functions and motor reflexes make up the bulk of it. You 'higher order sapience' comes only from 10% of the total brain mass. That's where people got that absurd idea that we only use 10% of our brains. I hope I didn't ruin that new Scarlett Johansson movie for you.

However, I've got a pretty good explanation for the evolution of wings I can show you. Let me know what you think.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon May 12, 2014 1:46 am
dandanPosts: 431Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Quote from ARONRA
You might like to see some of my videos then. The one about eyes is really well-known, anyone can show you that one. Brains probably aren't going to be as interesting as you think. In the image below, the pink bit could be referred to as the 'fish' brain. The red part could be colloquially described as the 'amphibian' brain, and then of course the 'reptilian' brain is indicated in the yellow area. All of these are built on the prior foundation, just as you'd expect with an evolutionary progression, and all are found within the mammalian neocortex.

Image



Sure, If you can prove that a “fish brain” can evolve in to a “amphibian brain” I would accept evoluton.

All you have to do is to prove that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection… can create a complex brain from a simpler brain.

For example you can identify the genes that code for “fish brain” and for “amphibian brain” then explain which mutations or genetic changes would have had to occur I order to get an amphibian brain from a fish brain, and then explain why would each mutation be selected by natural selection. If you do that I would accept evolution (what I defined)

-You don´t have to explain every single genetic step that would produce an amphibian bran, a small sample would be enough

-You can use any other organ that was suppose to evolve from something simpler.

-Or you can simply prove that genomes in general are on average getting more complex as time passes. If you can prove that, it would logically follow that genomes where simpler in the past, and it would logically follow that complex stuff came from simpler stuff.
Mon May 12, 2014 2:37 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3364Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Sure, If you can prove that a “fish brain” can evolve in to a “amphibian brain” I would accept evoluton.

All you have to do is to prove that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection… can create a complex brain from a simpler brain.

For example you can identify the genes that code for “fish brain” and for “amphibian brain” then explain which mutations or genetic changes would have had to occur I order to get an amphibian brain from a fish brain, and then explain why would each mutation be selected by natural selection. If you do that I would accept evolution (what I defined)


Image


If that is truly all it would take for you to accept evolutionary theory, than you should read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. Wonderfully written book, which basically does exactly what you asked for above, plus a whole lot more. You should also watch the documentary based off of it for a brief overview.

However, keeping with this thread, why not take part in the challenge as well? Which of the facts that AronRa posted do you accept?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon May 12, 2014 2:56 am
YIM WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dragan Glas, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests
cron