Australian Politics Forum - Evolution is not a scientific theory

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #150 - Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 8:59pm Yes muso that is natural selection, most of it open to direct scientific enquiry. What point are you trying to make?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #151 - Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 12:49pm

I'm making the point that natural selection is the central mechanism that drives evolutionary processes. Actually genetics and epigenetics postdate the Theory of Evolution, but this information actually reinforces the original theory.

Charles Darwin's book is titled "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection"

If you are reading anything more into the term "Evolution", please elucidate.

Are you saying that Evolution = Natural Selection plus Abiogenesis? We've been down that track before. It isn't.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #152 - Feb 25^th, 2014 at 9:29pm Abiogenisis. Universal common ancestry. The tree. All beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection. If we have been down this road before, why do you keep bringing up Popper?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

bludger Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 314 Gender:	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #153 - May 2^nd, 2014 at 10:46pm scientific conclusions are theories based on observable facts.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #154 - May 3^rd, 2014 at 9:56pm If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different. They are chalk and cheese. In fact we have no idea what the actual mechanisms of abiogenesis were. All we have is wild , albeit intelligent guesses.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Yadda Gold Member Offline Posts: 21470 A cat with a view	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #155 - May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:01pm I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary. [...for all of these words i do not know]
Back to top	"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31 IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #156 - May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:46pm

Quote:

If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different. They are chalk and cheese.

I mean abiogenesis, universal common ancestry, the tree, etc - all beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #157 - May 5^th, 2014 at 1:33pm

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:46pm:

Quote:

If you mean abiogenesis, then say abiogeneis, and I'd agree with you. Evolution is totally different. They are chalk and cheese.

I mean abiogenesis, universal common ancestry, the tree, etc - all beyond scientific enquiry. Conveniently, this is also where people distinguish the theory of evolution from the theory of natural selection.

Oh really

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #158 - May 5^th, 2014 at 6:07pm

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:01pm:

I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary.
[...for all of these words i do not know]

Yadda - some words that you understand:
Quote:

Genesis 2:7 (KJ21)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some "scientific" abiogenesis stuff:

Quote:

Clay Could Have Encouraged First Cells to Form
Oct 24, 2003 |By Sarah Graham

COURTESY OF J.W. SZOSTAK
While many armchair philosophers are searching for the meaning of life, researchers are hard at work investigating the origins of life on Earth. New findings suggest that a lump of clay could have provided a platform for the formation of primordial cells.

Previous research indicated that chemicals found in so-called montmorillonite clay could catalyze reactions involved in constructing RNA from nucleotides....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clay-could-have-encourage/

Both mention clay, but one text uses the words "could have".
Which do you think is probably the most accurate? The account of Genesis taken literally or not so literally, or on the other hand, the untested hypothesis?

Then according to greek mythology Prometheus created man from clay, while Athena breathed life into them.

.. and even the Koran:

Quote:

023.012
YUSUFALI: Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
PICKTHAL: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
SHAKIR: And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 5^th, 2014 at 6:14pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory Reply #159 - May 5^th, 2014 at 9:38pm The Chinese made whole armies out of clay.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Evolution is not a scientific theory
Reply #160 - May 6^th, 2014 at 8:49am

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2014 at 6:07pm:

Yadda wrote on May 3^rd, 2014 at 10:01pm:

I'm glad someone invented and decided to compile, a dictionary.
[...for all of these words i do not know]

Yadda - some words that you understand:
Quote:

Genesis 2:7 (KJ21)

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some "scientific" abiogenesis stuff:

Quote:

Clay Could Have Encouraged First Cells to Form
Oct 24, 2003 |By Sarah Graham

COURTESY OF J.W. SZOSTAK
While many armchair philosophers are searching for the meaning of life, researchers are hard at work investigating the origins of life on Earth. New findings suggest that a lump of clay could have provided a platform for the formation of primordial cells.

Previous research indicated that chemicals found in so-called montmorillonite clay could catalyze reactions involved in constructing RNA from nucleotides....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clay-could-have-encourage/

Both mention clay, but one text uses the words "could have".
Which do you think is probably the most accurate? The account of Genesis taken literally or not so literally, or on the other hand, the untested hypothesis?

Then according to greek mythology Prometheus created man from clay, while Athena breathed life into them.

.. and even the Koran:

Quote:

023.012
YUSUFALI: Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
PICKTHAL: Verily We created man from a product of wet earth;
SHAKIR: And certainly We created man of an extract of clay,

I'd go with neither. A fairy tale on one hand, untested hypothesis on the other

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged