Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Post Reply New Topic

It is a fact. The THEORY portion is Natural Selection. Here is the video where Carl Sagan explains it (He understands it, how can't you?) :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4FqAUEEv_U[/youtube]

Last edited by Kalister1 on 11 May 2008, 9:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Why do you not believe evolution has occurred? Evolution, strictly speaking, is both a theory and a fact. A fact in that species change and diverge. This has been observed, and it really can't be disputed. A theory in that it attempts to provide consistent explanations as to how these things occurs and makes testable predictions. A theory can simultaneously be a fact, as in the theory of universal gravitation or the theory of general relativity. Even the germ theory of disease. The germ theory of disease is undoubtedly a fact.

I'm not trying to fool you on anything. Evolution IS a fact. You can challenge that notion in my other thread if you like.

wow....

I'm telling you, there's a whole ton of closet-case Ptolemaics in the astronomy profession too. Not to mention all the Aristotelians in the engineering world who KNOW in their hearts that really F≠ma and inertia is a lie of the devil!

Yeah, he is not smart. Common sense isn't an argument, and appealing to common sense is a cardinal sin in both science and philosophy.

Isn't it common sense that the Earth is flat? We couldn't stand on a sphere!
Isn't it common sense the Earth goes around the sun? If it didnt, we'd fly off!
Isn't it common sense that time is the same all over the universe? Einstein is an idiot!

Last edited by Kalister1 on 11 May 2008, 9:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The crab thing is quite fascinating.

It was so fascinating I just had to research it. But I just found something which contends it (see the pdf in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heikegani).

this post has served its purpose

Last edited by Orwell on 11 May 2008, 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would love for that to be true, but I've heard too many leading experts on evolution literally cry out that "Evolution is a fact". Carl Sagan went as far as to declare: "Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It DID HAPPEN." (Boldface representing his inflections.)
That kind of statement is unmistakeable in what it's attempting to claim. And he's not the only one saying this -- I hear it everywhere I go! C'mon, you can't fool me on this.[/quote

people say the dumbest things, huh?

Hmmm.. Controversy! Just how much of the crab shell was influenced by fishermen? Dun dun dun.

Well, unless you are Thomas Reid!

In my experience, Ragtime has a history of evading specifics. If you try to get him to back up his claims with either evidence or logical argument, he either ignores you, uses appeal to ridicule, like above, or tries to distract you by insulting you or trying to be as annoying as possible, like here:

I have two possible explanations for that consistent pattern of behaviour, not mutually exclusive: Ragtime may take an unholy and quite unchristian joy in annoying people. That would make him a troll. And although his debating tactics are intellectually dishonest, paradoxically the root of this may be that he does have some intellectual honesty. Enough that he wants to avoid thinking about anything that would put him at risk of choosing between admitting he's wrong and admitting that he values his intellectual integrity less than his beliefs. Ragtime is deeply ignorant of evolution, and I suspect he cherishes that ignorance.

I think this assessment has a better than even probability of being accurate, but I still hope that Ragtime will prove me wrong. If he does, I will gladly retract my claims, and if I get reason to retract quickly enough, I will do it by an edit in this message.

He could start by contributing to Orwell's thread on evolution vs creation. I suspect Ragtime avoids it because Orwell's ground rules for serious debate (and people's effort to stick to them) would make Ragtime's usual tactics stick out like a sore thumb, and Ragtime has nothing substantial to contribute. Again, I would dearly like to be proven wrong.

Edit: He did it! On pages 14 and 15 of this thread Ragtime has two posts where he makes a substantial point. I disagree with what he says, but so what, it's an argument. I doubted he could do it, but I was wrong, he can.

Last edited by Gromit on 12 May 2008, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

See, there's not even agreement here! Science??? Can't even get straight whether evolution is a fact or a theory.
This is the dishonesty I referred to that keeps me skeptical of evolutionists. Like the Catholic Church, they say one thing, and then turn around and say the exact opposite -- all the while insisting they're not! It's quite galling.

How do you get that from your daily (nay, moment-by-moment) observations of gravity versus your supposed daily observations of evolution?? Do you wake up every morning, and feel evolution like you feel gravity every morning? And, interestingly, I've never heard gravity argued for with such pregnant passion, as if the fate of the world rested on everyone believing in gravity. (And before you try a cheap shot, yes, I believe in gravity. I have to cover all my bases with some of you people.)

Ah, okay, there you are correct. "Evolution" has become a very wide-ranging, and hence problematic term to use, since people use it for both microevolution and macroevolution. Indeed, and as I've said before, scientists use the term "evolution" for everything from the smallest random mutation, to abiogenesis producing cells that eventually produce man -- which is a long stretch indeed, mathematically.

Orwell admitted that hate was too strong a word to use, and I accept that.

Also, I should warn you guys, if you want me to read your posts, putting "Raggy" is a good way to get me to skip 'em.