Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Demonstrating Evolution To Be Valid Science

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:



Insert your hypothesis here:




Insert your experiment here:



Insert the results of the experiment here:



Insert conclusion based on results here:




Insert prediction here:



Compose and insert a comprehensive theory here:





If you can fill this out without invoking the supernatural (because the supernatural cannot be scientific) as proof, and without other blatant flaws that Myself or other scientists can point out, then it can be considered science.


If you cannot fill this out in specific detail, then you cannot call it scientific.

Would you show how Evolution fits these criteria?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.

Insert your hypothesis here:

Populations of organisms retain mutational traits that batter allow them to reproduce. They change over time in accordance to their environment.

Insert your experiment here:

Population of organism x is isolated.
A mutational trait among select members of population x is identified, and designated trait y.
Environment of population x is designed to give individuals with trait y a reproductive advantage.

Insert the results of the experiment here:

After z number of generations, all individuals of population x now have trait y.

Insert conclusion based on results here:

Population X adapted to its environment by evolving an advantageous trait.

Insert prediction here:

A given population will evolve to better suit their environment, given advantageous mutation and sufficient time.

Compose and insert a comprehensive theory here:

Life expands, develops, and diversifies by evolving via mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow, in accordance with natural selection.


If you can fill this out without invoking the supernatural (because the supernatural cannot be scientific) as proof, and without other blatant flaws that Myself or other scientists can point out, then it can be considered science.


If you cannot fill this out in specific detail, then you cannot call it scientific.

Would you show how Evolution fits these criteria?

Done. When you are done one round of the experiment, repeat, building a new trait atop the old one.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:06:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

Off the top of my head, the Dodo. It did not mutate an adaption for a change in its environment, and lost the ability to reproduce effectively. Hence it was selected against and died.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:06:39 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

Off the top of my head, the Dodo. It did not mutate an adaption for a change in its environment, and lost the ability to reproduce effectively. Hence it was selected against and died.

But you said this was the observation:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level.

Doesn't the Dodo population, by your own admission, contradict this observation? I mean, the Dodo example demonstrates that your original observation was actually wrong, and if the observation that Evolution is based on is shown to be wrong, then it all falls apart!

Not saying this means Evolution is wrong; I'm just talking in regards to the confines of this thread.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert. I mean, environments and organisms follow the laws of physics and have objective physical characteristics that make them better, or worse suited for each other.

Obviously an animal that has fins and gills, isnt going to be suited on an environment that has very little water.

I mean, how long would a polar bear survive in the desert, versus a cactus?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 4:14:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:10:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:06:39 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

Off the top of my head, the Dodo. It did not mutate an adaption for a change in its environment, and lost the ability to reproduce effectively. Hence it was selected against and died.

But you said this was the observation:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level.

Doesn't the Dodo population, by your own admission, contradict this observation? I mean, the Dodo example demonstrates that your original observation was actually wrong, and if the observation that Evolution is based on is shown to be wrong, then it all falls apart!

Not saying this means Evolution is wrong; I'm just talking in regards to the confines of this thread.

No, the dodo demonstrates the detail of the prediction. Given an advantageous mutation, and time, they will evolve. The dodo was not given an advantageous mutation. Is that not what you asked? An organism that was not suited to its environment?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 6:23:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:12:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert. I mean, environments and organisms follow the laws of physics and have objective physical characteristics that make them better, or worse suited for each other.

Obviously an animal that has fins and gills, isnt going to be suited on an environment that has very little water.

I mean, how long would a polar bear survive in the desert, versus a cactus?

: What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert

I think you need to clairfy here. The question asks for an example of an organism population that is not suitable to reproduction in respect to its enviornment. Are you saying that the desert is the enviornment for a fish?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 8:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 6:23:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
: What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert

I think you need to clairfy here. The question asks for an example of an organism population that is not suitable to reproduction in respect to its enviornment. Are you saying that the desert is the enviornment for a fish?

Unless I am reading something wrong the question asks for a "hypothetical example". A fish living in the desert is clearly a hypothetical example.

The observation is organisms are highly suited for reproduction in their environment. The scientific theory is that this is true because of evolution. An alternate (but not scientific theory) why this is true is because these organisms were created this way.

Evolution predicts that on relatively new volcanic islands we will see birds and reptiles (vertabrae with the ability to migrate from nearby continents) closely related to their nearby relatives yet evolved to their new habitat. Enter the Dodo who shared a common ancestor with pigeons. On an island free from terrestrial mammals, flight no longer becomes a necessity for survival and reproduction. The result is a flightless bird. Reintroduce terrestrial mammals back into the mix as sailors in the 1500 and 1600s did and extinction quickly ensues.

There are dozens more examples of exactly the same thing happening. On the flip side of the coin we also see invasive species offering similar demonstrations. A relationship where predators and prey have evolved together is broken when a new species introduced to which either the predators are not adapted to efficiently eat. Plants that can produce their own nitrogen being located in some areas of the world. When introduced to volcanic islands where this adaptation has not yet occurred in the local populations they quickly take over.

Evolution predicts all of these things and effectively explains them. Creationism can only note the observation and say "Well that is because God did it that way."
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 8:13:40 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/15/2014 6:23:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
: What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert

I think you need to clairfy here. The question asks for an example of an organism population that is not suitable to reproduction in respect to its enviornment. Are you saying that the desert is the enviornment for a fish?

Unless I am reading something wrong the question asks for a "hypothetical example". A fish living in the desert is clearly a hypothetical example.

The observation is organisms are highly suited for reproduction in their environment. The scientific theory is that this is true because of evolution. An alternate (but not scientific theory) why this is true is because these organisms were created this way.

Evolution predicts that on relatively new volcanic islands we will see birds and reptiles (vertabrae with the ability to migrate from nearby continents) closely related to their nearby relatives yet evolved to their new habitat. Enter the Dodo who shared a common ancestor with pigeons. On an island free from terrestrial mammals, flight no longer becomes a necessity for survival and reproduction. The result is a flightless bird. Reintroduce terrestrial mammals back into the mix as sailors in the 1500 and 1600s did and extinction quickly ensues.

There are dozens more examples of exactly the same thing happening. On the flip side of the coin we also see invasive species offering similar demonstrations. A relationship where predators and prey have evolved together is broken when a new species introduced to which either the predators are not adapted to efficiently eat. Plants that can produce their own nitrogen being located in some areas of the world. When introduced to volcanic islands where this adaptation has not yet occurred in the local populations they quickly take over.

Evolution predicts all of these things and effectively explains them. Creationism can only note the observation and say "Well that is because God did it that way."

With all due respect, and while agreeing with everything you have just stated, I am under the impression that this thread is dedicated strictly to establishing the scientificity of evolution. This excludes creationism from the topic, and to raise it in discussion here is dilatory.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 8:57:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 8:13:40 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/15/2014 6:23:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
: What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert

I think you need to clairfy here. The question asks for an example of an organism population that is not suitable to reproduction in respect to its enviornment. Are you saying that the desert is the enviornment for a fish?

Unless I am reading something wrong the question asks for a "hypothetical example". A fish living in the desert is clearly a hypothetical example.

The observation is organisms are highly suited for reproduction in their environment. The scientific theory is that this is true because of evolution. An alternate (but not scientific theory) why this is true is because these organisms were created this way.

Evolution predicts that on relatively new volcanic islands we will see birds and reptiles (vertabrae with the ability to migrate from nearby continents) closely related to their nearby relatives yet evolved to their new habitat. Enter the Dodo who shared a common ancestor with pigeons. On an island free from terrestrial mammals, flight no longer becomes a necessity for survival and reproduction. The result is a flightless bird. Reintroduce terrestrial mammals back into the mix as sailors in the 1500 and 1600s did and extinction quickly ensues.

There are dozens more examples of exactly the same thing happening. On the flip side of the coin we also see invasive species offering similar demonstrations. A relationship where predators and prey have evolved together is broken when a new species introduced to which either the predators are not adapted to efficiently eat. Plants that can produce their own nitrogen being located in some areas of the world. When introduced to volcanic islands where this adaptation has not yet occurred in the local populations they quickly take over.

Evolution predicts all of these things and effectively explains them. Creationism can only note the observation and say "Well that is because God did it that way."

: Unless I am reading something wrong the question asks for a "hypothetical example". A fish living in the desert is clearly a hypothetical example.

Yeah, you are right if the question being asked was meaningless nonsense.

Evolution predicts all of these things and effectively explains them

Not only that, evolution predicts innumerable transitional fossils except when it predicts stasis. Evolution predicts similar molecular features will yield similar visible features except when they don't, in which case evolution predicts that too. Evolution predicts that major differences between life forms emerge slowly over very long periods of time, and when such differences appear suddenly, evolution has a prediction for that too. Evolution predicts that mutations are random and when evidence emerges that some mutations may be triggered, then evolution predicts that triggered (read: non-random) mutations is an evolved trait.

Yep. No matter what it is, evolution explains it perfectly. Nothing explains everything like evolution. It must be true!

Talk about meaningless nonsense!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 9:33:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not only that, evolution predicts innumerable transitional fossils except when it predicts stasis.

If you're going to take different predictions out of the specific examples they were originally applied to, then of course you will get contradictory observations. It's like saying newton's laws predicts something will keep moving, except when it's staying still!

Evolution predicts similar molecular features will yield similar visible features except when they don't, in which case evolution predicts that too. Evolution predicts that major differences between life forms emerge slowly over very long periods of time, and when such differences appear suddenly, evolution has a prediction for that too.

You misquote over and over the specific instances the predictions are made in. In no theory will the same thing be predicted in two different ways with the same system. And as far as I am aware, big changes do, and always have taken geological time scales to emerge.

Evolution predicts that mutations are random and when evidence emerges that some mutations may be triggered, then evolution predicts that triggered (read: non-random) mutations is an evolved trait.

I don't know what you are talking about here

Yep. No matter what it is, evolution explains it perfectly. Nothing explains everything like evolution. It must be true!

Damn right! And you better like it.

Talk about meaningless nonsense!

Talk about the ignorance!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 8:57:22 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Not only that, evolution predicts innumerable transitional fossils except when it predicts stasis.

How exactly does evolution, which is proposed to happen over a finite time scale, predict an innumerable number of transitional fossils? I suspect either you don't understand the words you are using or are trying to create a strawman here.

Evolution predicts similar molecular features will yield similar visible features except when they don't, in which case evolution predicts that too.

Please provide an example.

Evolution predicts that major differences between life forms emerge slowly over very long periods of time, and when such differences appear suddenly, evolution has a prediction for that too.

Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion? 80 million years doesn't qualify as suddenly to most people. If you are talking about other examples, please provide those.

Evolution predicts that mutations are random and when evidence emerges that some mutations may be triggered, then evolution predicts that triggered (read: non-random) mutations is an evolved trait.

Please provide an example of a triggered mutation of which you speak.

Sorry to ask for specifics but it is impossible to argue against vague assertions.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 2:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 6:23:26 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:12:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert. I mean, environments and organisms follow the laws of physics and have objective physical characteristics that make them better, or worse suited for each other.

Obviously an animal that has fins and gills, isnt going to be suited on an environment that has very little water.

I mean, how long would a polar bear survive in the desert, versus a cactus?

: What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

A fish, in the environment of a desert

I think you need to clairfy here. The question asks for an example of an organism population that is not suitable to reproduction in respect to its enviornment. Are you saying that the desert is the enviornment for a fish?

Well, first off, environments change, which is the reason why organisms need to become suitable to begin with. And secondly, yes, the desert is an environment for a fish that isnt suited to its environment. Were either talking about an organism that is suited to its environment, or is not suited to its environment. And clearly, fish are not suited to a desert environment.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 8:28:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

That life exists, that diversity of life and that some life exists in some environments but not others.




Insert your hypothesis here:

That life is a continuous process of change.





Insert your experiment here:

Not to sure if what I say next counts as an "experiment". But......

Gather information of past existing life (eg fossils)




Insert the results of the experiment here:

Gather information of past existing life (eg fossils)




Insert conclusion based on results here:

That complex life emerged later in earths history.





Insert prediction here:

I would say Insert TESTABLE prediction here. Psychics and prophets give "predictions" all the time, they are just so vague that they can't be every be proved false.

That we will not find any human fossils that exist with (insert life form here) Dinosaurs ?

This prediction could be proved false if such a fossil was found.




Compose and insert a comprehensive theory here:

That life is a continuous process of change that has happened over a long period of time. Complex life (eg humans) has it's origins in simpler life forms.






If you can fill this out without invoking the supernatural (because the supernatural cannot be scientific) as proof, and without other blatant flaws that Myself or other scientists can point out, then it can be considered science.


If you cannot fill this out in specific detail, then you cannot call it scientific.

Would you show how Evolution fits these criteria?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:18:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 4:14:27 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:10:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:06:39 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

Off the top of my head, the Dodo. It did not mutate an adaption for a change in its environment, and lost the ability to reproduce effectively. Hence it was selected against and died.

But you said this was the observation:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level.

Doesn't the Dodo population, by your own admission, contradict this observation? I mean, the Dodo example demonstrates that your original observation was actually wrong, and if the observation that Evolution is based on is shown to be wrong, then it all falls apart!

Not saying this means Evolution is wrong; I'm just talking in regards to the confines of this thread.

No, the dodo demonstrates the detail of the prediction. Given an advantageous mutation, and time, they will evolve. The dodo was not given an advantageous mutation. Is that not what you asked? An organism that was not suited to its environment?

I asked for a hypothetical example of an organism that is not suited to its environment. I didn't ask for a real example because a real example would contradict your observation. But since you actually provided a real example, you make your own observation to be false!

You cannot say that you observe "all organism populations" as highly suited to their environment, and at the same time say that you observe dodos were a population not suited to their environment. It's a contradiction.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:18:58 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:14:27 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:10:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 4:06:39 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:52:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:49:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/14/2014 3:33:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/14/2014 12:35:36 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
For you to [call something] science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level. They do not show effects of this suitability in traits not related to reproduction.


If you don't mind, I'd like to cut you off right here. I understand that in biology, it's not practical to expect a mathematical formula for everything. However, I think it's fair to demand an objective method by which one can determine if an organism population is "highly suited to reproduction" in respect to it's environment.

A given organism demonstraits traits that match it's environment, to the exclusion of other environments. All traits that match the environment in which to organism lives can be trased directly to reproductive advantage.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

What is a hypothetical example of an organism population that is not highly suited to reproduction in respect to it's environment?

Off the top of my head, the Dodo. It did not mutate an adaption for a change in its environment, and lost the ability to reproduce effectively. Hence it was selected against and died.

But you said this was the observation:

All organism populations are highly suited to reproduction in their respective environments, even as environments change, and even on a genetic level.

Doesn't the Dodo population, by your own admission, contradict this observation? I mean, the Dodo example demonstrates that your original observation was actually wrong, and if the observation that Evolution is based on is shown to be wrong, then it all falls apart!

Not saying this means Evolution is wrong; I'm just talking in regards to the confines of this thread.

No, the dodo demonstrates the detail of the prediction. Given an advantageous mutation, and time, they will evolve. The dodo was not given an advantageous mutation. Is that not what you asked? An organism that was not suited to its environment?

I asked for a hypothetical example of an organism that is not suited to its environment. I didn't ask for a real example because a real example would contradict your observation. But since you actually provided a real example, you make your own observation to be false!

You cannot say that you observe "all organism populations" as highly suited to their environment, and at the same time say that you observe dodos were a population not suited to their environment. It's a contradiction.

You seem to misunderstand. Not all organisms evolve in accordance with the environment, because it is conditional on advantageous mutation. All living organisms are evolved to their respective environments, because any that don't evolve to it go extinct.

The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

The dodo did not have a mutation to select for. This scenario is clearly considered and accounted for in the prediction.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:36:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.

I think there's a missing conditional, namely that the environment be static. A changed environment takes time to "stabilize".

All species going extinct today (AFAIK) are going extinct because their environment is changing.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:14:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.

The only populations going extinct today are the ones in a changing environment who are not given am advantageous mutation. I say again, this situation is provided for.

The dodo was highly suited to its environment, until it went through a rapid alteration that killed them in the space of a few generations.

What you are doing, Garret, is falling prey to a known pseudoscience trap known as the gap fallacy. This is to take a statement such as this observation above that applies perfectly to99% of the world, and has a 1% where it is not falsified, but complicated, as in species extinction, harp on this 1% complication and use it to complicate or falsify the other 99%.

This type of thought does not follow scientific reasoning in the slightest, and in my personal opinion it arises only from a preconceived (and erroneous) conviction that there most certainly is an error somewhere in the science and all you need to is find it.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 3:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:14:25 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.

The only populations going extinct today are the ones in a changing environment who are not given am advantageous mutation. I say again, this situation is provided for.

The dodo was highly suited to its environment, until it went through a rapid alteration that killed them in the space of a few generations.

What you are doing, Garret, is falling prey to a known pseudoscience trap known as the gap fallacy. This is to take a statement such as this observation above that applies perfectly to99% of the world, and has a 1% where it is not falsified, but complicated, as in species extinction, harp on this 1% complication and use it to complicate or falsify the other 99%.

This type of thought does not follow scientific reasoning in the slightest, and in my personal opinion it arises only from a preconceived (and erroneous) conviction that there most certainly is an error somewhere in the science and all you need to is find it.

All of the arguments use the gap fallacy. They would only work together, except they're all invalid.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 4:18:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:14:25 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.

The only populations going extinct today are the ones in a changing environment who are not given am advantageous mutation. I say again, this situation is provided for.

The dodo was highly suited to its environment, until it went through a rapid alteration that killed them in the space of a few generations.

What you are doing, Garret, is falling prey to a known pseudoscience trap known as the gap fallacy. This is to take a statement such as this observation above that applies perfectly to99% of the world, and has a 1% where it is not falsified, but complicated, as in species extinction, harp on this 1% complication and use it to complicate or falsify the other 99%.

This type of thought does not follow scientific reasoning in the slightest, and in my personal opinion it arises only from a preconceived (and erroneous) conviction that there most certainly is an error somewhere in the science and all you need to is find it.

You know you've won the debate when your opponent's best rebuttal consists of accusing you of a non-existent fallacy.

I'm done with this thread. When the opposition considers the truth to be a fallacy, it's pointless to continue arguing.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 4:38:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 4:18:52 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

What of my point regarding the missing conditional?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 4:38:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 4:18:52 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:


What of my point regarding the missing conditional?

I made this thread just for PotBelliedGreek, lol. Sorry :\
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 12:29:24 PM, Floid wrote:
At 2/15/2014 8:57:22 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Not only that, evolution predicts innumerable transitional fossils except when it predicts stasis.

How exactly does evolution, which is proposed to happen over a finite time scale, predict an innumerable number of transitional fossils? I suspect either you don't understand the words you are using or are trying to create a strawman here.


Evolution predicts similar molecular features will yield similar visible features except when they don't, in which case evolution predicts that too.

Please provide an example.


Evolution predicts that major differences between life forms emerge slowly over very long periods of time, and when such differences appear suddenly, evolution has a prediction for that too.

Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion? 80 million years doesn't qualify as suddenly to most people. If you are talking about other examples, please provide those.


Evolution predicts that mutations are random and when evidence emerges that some mutations may be triggered, then evolution predicts that triggered (read: non-random) mutations is an evolved trait.

Please provide an example of a triggered mutation of which you speak.


Sorry to ask for specifics but it is impossible to argue against vague assertions.

No need to apologize! You have every right to press me for specific examples. Here goes:

: How exactly does evolution, which is proposed to happen over a finite time scale, predict an innumerable number of transitional fossils? I suspect either you don't understand the words you are using or are trying to create a strawman here.

"But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

Darwin considered this lack of transitionals in the fossil record the "gravest and most serious objection that could be raised against my theory" The above quote was lifted from Darwin's "Origin of Species." The sole illustration in the book is the famous "tree of life." Darwin's theory predicts gradual change.

But then, I suspect that being an enthusiastic adherent, you already knew all of this.

:Evolution predicts similar molecular features will yield similar visible features except when they don't, in which case evolution predicts that too.

Please provide an example.

I imagine you have at least heard the term, "convergent evolution." This phrase is used to explain what I am talking about. A great example: the evolutionary model says that marsupial mammals diverged very early from placental mammals. Molecularly, this makes sense. Yet today we have both marsupial wolves, and placental wolves; marsupial skunks and placental skunks; marsupial squirrels and palcental squirrels, and others. For such similar morphological features to evolve separately just once is not a result that could be expected from a purely blind process. That it has happened over and over again strains credulity. Yet, undaunted, evolution's devotees, whose starting point is that evolution must be true no matter what, have come up with the term, "convergent evolution"

Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion? 80 million years doesn't qualify as suddenly to most people. If you are talking about other examples, please provide those.
I am, and I have several responses here. First, 80 million years is a long time to you and I, to be sure! But from the standpoint of evolution, it is not. In context of the history of life on earth, this period of time represents less than 3%. It is at least odd and challenging that the majority of the phyla and classes appeared in such a short instance, and there is no reason to give us confidence that 80 million years is nearly enough time for random mutation plus natural selection to produce several different complex phyla from a handful of highly debatable simple precursors. On the other hand, there exists a good amount of evidence to suggest that mutation+selection cannot accomplish this.

This is further exacerbated when we take into account the fact that every new major cambrian find places the appearance of biological complexity closer and closer to the beginning of this period. This was accomplished in Chengjiang, and now, just in last month from the famous Burgess shale, just 26 miles from Wolcott's find:
http://www.nature.com....

Finally, and most damning is the fact that the Cambrian turns the tree of life that must have some truth to it if Darwin's theory has any truth to it, completely upside down.

Please provide an example of a triggered mutation of which you speak.

To be clear, the exact phrase I used was, "when evidence emerges that some mutations may be triggered"

In his book, "Evolution: A View From the 21st Century," U of Chicago molecular biologist James Shapiro points out that modern biology has uncovered various mechanisms by which organisms can rewrite their own genome, especially in response to stress. From page 6:

"Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatics perspective, it appears that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through the limitless space of possible DNA configurations."

It should be noted that Shapiro believes in evolution.

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:28:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 4:18:52 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/17/2014 9:14:25 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:21:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:56:58 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/16/2014 9:25:02 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
The observation states that species are well suited to the environment even as it changes.

The observation states that ALL species are well suited to the environment even as it changes. Yet, the Dodo is a counter example.

Are, present tense. All species alive right now are suited to the environment in which they live. If and when an environment changes, they either evolve or die.

This makes no sense. A population of animals going extinct is clearly not "highly suited" to its environment. Your observation does not hold, even in the present day.

The only populations going extinct today are the ones in a changing environment who are not given am advantageous mutation. I say again, this situation is provided for.

The dodo was highly suited to its environment, until it went through a rapid alteration that killed them in the space of a few generations.

What you are doing, Garret, is falling prey to a known pseudoscience trap known as the gap fallacy. This is to take a statement such as this observation above that applies perfectly to99% of the world, and has a 1% where it is not falsified, but complicated, as in species extinction, harp on this 1% complication and use it to complicate or falsify the other 99%.

This type of thought does not follow scientific reasoning in the slightest, and in my personal opinion it arises only from a preconceived (and erroneous) conviction that there most certainly is an error somewhere in the science and all you need to is find it.

You know you've won the debate when your opponent's best rebuttal consists of accusing you of a non-existent fallacy.

I'm done with this thread. When the opposition considers the truth to be a fallacy, it's pointless to continue arguing.

( I truly don't intend to patronize here, so don't take this the wrong way. I am sorry you feel this way. This is a legitimate fallacy studied thoroughly in college, in science, philosophy, and communications classes.

By pointing it out I never meant to offend you or attack your intelligence. I merely perceived the fallacy within the argument and pointed it out.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!