Why male and female?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I am a proud member of the card carrying old farts club! I think I am older than most anyone here at 72. And it looks like, knock on plastic, I will be around for a long time to come to impale religious fantasy.

Well personally I hope you are around a long time to implale fantasy, I just
hope you come to see that man theories can be just a fantasy too, but
even if we disprove one theory doesn't mean someone else's is correct.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well personally I hope you are around a long time to implale fantasy, I just
hope you come to see that man theories can be just a fantasy too, but
even if we disprove one theory doesn't mean someone else's is correct.
Kelly

The implication being if we disprove the biblical account of creation that evolution is STILL wrong?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The implication being if we disprove the biblical account of creation that evolution is STILL wrong?

No I was thinking of even if we disproved evolution,, that does not mean
that creation can be proven true. Saying something is wrong means we
have a clear answer.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I was thinking of even if we disproved evolution,, that does not mean
that creation can be proven true. Saying something is wrong means we
have a clear answer.
Kelly

Except it is not possible to 'disprove evolution'.
That evolution takes place is true by definition.
That certain parts of the Theory of Evolution are an accurate description of reality, such as natural selection, has been observed in real life and in some cases the way it works can be proved mathematically/logically, or demonstrated using computer simulations.
So at best, you can disprove some of the claims found in or related to the Theory of Evolution.
I think part of the problem is we tend to confuse the meaning of the word 'evolution' with the process 'evolution' (both in terms of microevolution and macroevolution) and 'the Theory of Evolution' which could also mean a variety of things including the claim of common descent, or all the various ideas about how evolution in general works and has worked in the past.

So for example one can never disprove 'gravity'. Gravity is true by definition. It is defined as 'that which appears to cause mass to attract'. Similarly if we say 'the Theory of Gravity' are you referring to Newtons Law of universal gravitation, Einstein's General Relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics or what?
So if you say 'if we disproved gravity' it would be far from clear what you mean.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you saying because I question evolution it means I don't understand it?
If so, does this mean every time you question something I've said it means you don't understand it? I don't understand your logic.

No, you question evolution because you don't understand it. I question homeopathy, but I understand it pretty well.

There is a distinction between observing that evolution happens (the evidence for this is so vast no sensible person with rudimentary knowledge of the evidence would question it) and trying to determine how species have evolved (which depends partially on the fossil record, which is rather sketchy so this is often up for debate, especially as you go further into the past).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, but his point is that sometimes selection is related to specific genes which can then be judged 'advantageous' or 'disadvantageous', and sometimes the selection has nothing to do with the genes, so the genes are totally neutral with regards to the selection.
If avian flu kills 30% of a population, the gene for brown hair has nothing to do with survi ...[text shortened]... st so happens that people with brown hair die in greater number than people with black hair.

I'm glad somebody got my point.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, you question evolution because you don't understand it. I question homeopathy, but I understand it pretty well.

There is a distinction between observing that evolution happens (the evidence for this is so vast no sensible person with rudimentary knowledge of the evidence would question it) and trying to determine how species have evolved (which d ...[text shortened]... is rather sketchy so this is often up for debate, especially as you go further into the past).

In your analogy you assumed one traveler moving along one road. No matter how reasonable this may seem to you, you did not in fact observe this happening. So when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened. Your statement that no sensible person would question what you believe based on the evidence is ridiculous. All it means is that you are sensible and those who disagree with you are not.

Originally posted by lemon lime
In your analogy you assumed one traveler moving along one road. No matter how reasonable this may seem to you, you did not in fact observe this happening. So when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened. Your statement that no sensible person would question what you beli ...[text shortened]... is ridiculous. All it means is that you are sensible and those who disagree with you are not.

when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened.

"observing that evolution happens" would generally mean “observation of what actually happened” but cannot mean “ observation of the theory” no matter how you try and twist it because, in any language, "the theory" is not normally said to be something that "happens" but rather is something that just is.
Do you know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Your statement that no sensible person would question what you believe based on the evidence is ridiculous.

false. Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs.

if we saw evidence against evolution, we would not believe evolution. Creationists ignore the evidence for evolution, and that's one of the main differences between us and Creationists.

Originally posted by humy

when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened.

"observing that evolution happens" would generally mean “observation of what actually happened” but cannot mean “ observation of the theory” no matter how you try and twist it because, in any language, "the t ...[text shortened]... ence for evolution, and that's one of the main differences between us and Creationists.

I agree that "Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs." The theory of evolution is not a house of cards, because a house of cards cannot rest on a foundation of unseen theoretical cards.

Originally posted by lemon lime
In your analogy you assumed one traveler moving along one road. No matter how reasonable this may seem to you, you did not in fact observe this happening. So when you say "observing that evolution happens" this is an observation of the theory, not an observation of what actually happened. Your statement that no sensible person would question what you beli ...[text shortened]... is ridiculous. All it means is that you are sensible and those who disagree with you are not.

The point is you don't need to "observe what actually happened" to verify the theory. You don't need to verify how every object moved in the past to validate the theory of gravity. You just need to observe that gravity exists, and then find a (hopefully accurate) description of how it works. In the case of evolution, both are trivial and are supported by a vast body of evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was [b]not obvious from the context, especially since you had this sentence in your context:

We appear to agree that a definiton can be a description

Then you proceeded to give a description that you now say was not a definition.

I don't see why you are confused by point 3. Darwin was attempting to find a link between ...[text shortened]... dispute the existence of mutations, or do you dispute the effects they have on evolution?

"...the confusion arose because you seem to think Darwins theory consists entirely of common ancestry, when it is really much larger than that and includes natural selection."

No, the confusion arose because you decided to ignore what I said about it being a thumbnail sketch, as well as ignoring the fact that I did talk about natural selection. I have no control over what you seem to think I seem to be thinking about Darwins theory. There was nothing there to suggest I think Darwins theory consists entirely of common ancestry. You pulled that rabbit out of your own hat.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The point is you don't need to "observe what actually happened" to verify the theory. You don't need to verify how every object moved in the past to validate the theory of gravity. You just need to observe that gravity exists, and then find a (hopefully accurate) description of how it works. In the case of evolution, both are trivial and are supported by a vast body of evidence.

Are you sure you're not just "finding evidence" of evolution happening today because you believe it has happened in the past? humy made an important observation about evidence. It was obviously meant to only apply to people he disagrees with, but disagreement is not a principle of science. If it were then facts would only be things that can be voted on.

Gravity is observable now, so we don't need to theorize about the existence of gravity... this means I don't need to go looking for "evidence" to support a belief that gravity exists. Evolution on the other hand is not as evident to me as the existence of gravity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except it is not possible to 'disprove evolution'.
That evolution takes place is true by definition.
That certain parts of the Theory of Evolution are an accurate description of reality, such as natural selection, has been observed in real life and in some cases the way it works can be proved mathematically/logically, or demonstrated using computer simu ...[text shortened]... if you say 'if we disproved gravity' it would be far from clear what you mean.

"Except it is not possible to 'disprove evolution'.
That evolution takes place is true by definition."

Except it is not possible to 'disprove creation'.
That creation took place is true by definition.

(Same logic, different conclusion)

Originally posted by lemon lime
I agree that "Only the delusional ignore evidence against their current beliefs." The theory of evolution is not a house of cards, because a house of cards cannot rest on a foundation of unseen theoretical cards.

The theory of evolution is not a house of cards, because a house of cards cannot rest on a foundation of unseen theoretical cards

what on earth does that mean? You are talking complete gibberish. Translate into English please...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you sure you're not just "finding evidence" of evolution happening today because you believe it has happened in the past? humy made an important observation about evidence. It was obviously meant to only apply to people he disagrees with, but disagreement is not a principle of science. If it were then facts would only be things that can be voted on.
exists. Evolution on the other hand is not as evident to me as the existence of gravity.

humy made an important observation about evidence

which was...?

Gravity is observable now, so we don't need to theorize about the existence of gravity... this means I don't need to go looking for "evidence" to support a belief that gravity exists. Evolution on the other hand is not as evident to me as the existence of gravity.

-and that's because Evolution conflicts with your religious dogma while gravity doesn't. No doubt if gravity conflicted with your religion, you will fail to 'see' any evidence for gravity because you would either ignore the evidence and choose to be confused by the theory of gravity in the same way you choose as you are confused by the theory of evolution. Evolution has been observed many times in recorded history and that even includes a few macroevolution events most through humans hybridizing plants but some through naturally occurring hybridization or a naturally occurring increase in the number of chromosomes via mutation:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

“...
In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas.
A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis.
The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis.
The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species.
Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations.
An attempt by Russian scientist Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage resulted initially in the creation of hybrid plant that was sterile. However, the seeds of those plants became fertile with the parent species, creating the new plant Raphanobrassica.
Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa.
...”

this is, of course, just a minute fragment of the mountain of evidence for evolution but it is undeniably evidence nevertheless.
No doubt, you will ignore this evidence (or, possibly alternatively, choose to make yourself confused by this evidence just as you do with the theory) of evolution, just like you ignore the rest of the mountain of evidence -and we all know why.

In contrast, there is no known evidence against evolution; only for it.