Evolution debate in detail

There are six stages of evolution

Cosmic evolution, the evolution of time, space, and matter
Chemical evolution, the evolution of chemicals
Stellar evolution, the evolution of stars and planets
Organic evolution, life evolving from non-life
Macro evolution, the evolution of one kind of animal turning into another
Micro evolution, the changes of species within a kind

Science in the dictionary means "to know". And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration. Under those guidelines I contend that micro evolution is the only type of evolution we can call science. If you wish to debate that point please pick one of the other five stages to discuss and stick with that until you voice that you want to switch to something else. One topic at a time.

Oops I put this in the wrong thread. Feel free to move it in the science section.

And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.

Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 10:31:22 AM

And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.

Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.

However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.

However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.

The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 02:45:10 PM

However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.

The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.

By the strictest since of the term I can't prove that you will die.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 19, 2015, 02:48:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 02:45:10 PM

However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.

The former hasn't been proven for me, and sure for the latter, but are you saying it is an unscientific claim to say that I will die?
You cannot remove deduction from the scientific process. it's crucial: after all, you can tell nothing but the brute fact of an observation, without deduction. How do you know the cause of an observation? You don't, just by observing: you need to think about it, and consider it.

By the strictest since of the term I can't prove that you will die.

That's not the question. The question is, by your definition, is it unscientific to say that I will die?

What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!

What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!

Irrelevant. This discussion is about scientific evidence. I'm simply pointing out that, if Luke's definition is to be taken as accurate, it's absurdly limited.

Quote from: Aman68 on November 20, 2015, 01:00:45 AM

What happens after death is hidden from us for a reason. The same is true if reincarnation is a fact, we can't remember our previous incarnations and only carry earned innate knowledge forward. The focus is supposed to be on the here and now so that ignoramus's who live in the moment get what's coming to them. We can not escape the greater plan suckers, accept or deny, you have no control!

Irrelevant. This discussion is about scientific evidence. I'm simply pointing out that, if Luke's definition is to be taken as accurate, it's absurdly limited.

Ok, how would you difine science? Please use the dictionary to explain.

Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion. 

Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion.

Then science includes deduction. Empirical science, as you define it, is useless without theory: empirical science works only on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is developed that way.
Include the deduction you defined to be theoretical science, and you have a working system of science.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 21, 2015, 04:02:30 PM

Science is split into two catagories: empirical science and theorical science. Empirical science is what we observe, test, demonstrate, and measure. Theorical science is supposed to be things that we see and then take what we see to its logical conclusion.

Then science includes deduction. Empirical science, as you define it, is useless without theory: empirical science works only on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is developed that way.
Include the deduction you defined to be theoretical science, and you have a working system of science.

What you explained was the scientific method. What I explained was stuff we already know its science through the scientific method. Are you going to keep arguing about the definitions or are you going to provide a topic to discuss and provide evidence?

What you explained was the scientific method. What I explained was stuff we already know its science through the scientific method. Are you going to keep arguing about the definitions or are you going to provide a topic to discuss and provide evidence?

How can anyone discuss the evidence for a topic when there is a fundamental disagreement on what evidence is?
Certainly, micro-evolution is the only one we can directly observe: but this doesn't preclude the others having evidence which we arrive at from deductions of what we can now observe. Macro is a logical deduction, organic is part necessity and part observation, and while I disagree with REers on the first three we share the concept of what evidence is: we determine explanations for what it is we observe, and do so minimizing assumptions. If predictions can be verified, and aspects can click together, that feels like pretty good evidence to me.

Take, again, the fact that I will die. By the limited definition of science you gave, I wouldn't die. However, I'd say it's still very scientific to say I will die.
My initial post was simply to point out that deduction should not be divorced from science. No amount of observing, repeating or demonstrating is going to be of any use unless you can consider what you observe logically. You are the one who seemed oddly fixated on making this not the case.

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 11:14:29 AM

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 19, 2015, 02:41:07 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 19, 2015, 10:31:22 AM

And how we know something is by observation, repetition, and demonstration.

Under that definition I'm immortal because I've never been observed to die, it certainly will never be repeated, and it has not been demonstrated.
Science can't be divorced from simple logic. Often we rely on certain observations to deduce more.

However we can prove that death exist and so far we haven't proved that humans live forever.

I will prove it! But it will take some time. A lot of time

When I get to my fifties or sixties and still looking like I'm in my mid twenties  (in every way) then people will start taking me seriously.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 23, 2015, 12:46:51 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 11:14:29 AM

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.

And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 23, 2015, 12:46:51 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 11:14:29 AM

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.

And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.

And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 24, 2015, 08:10:12 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 23, 2015, 12:46:51 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 11:14:29 AM

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.

And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.

And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?

Define canine.
That's the problem with the typical anti-evolution arguments: they're grounded in bizarre defining, often relying on subtly different definitions of the same word on each setting. It's pretty clear dogs and wolves share a common ancestor which was likely a different species, because species is defined, scientifically, as something that cannot produce viable offspring. Dogs and wolves can breed (indicating similarity), and yet they are different species because the offspring itself is not fertile. Species, as a layperson defines it, is not so cut-and-dried as you'd think; there are grey areas.
This is pretty strong evidence of species divergence: one species becoming two, gradually getting further and further apart until there'll be no compatibility. If canine is taken to be dog-species, this indicates the possibility, deduction and logic gives the rest (barring supposition of unnecessary elements).

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 02:36:28 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 24, 2015, 08:10:12 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 05:23:10 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 23, 2015, 12:46:51 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2015, 11:14:29 AM

Ok, so if I told you that sense we get dogs as big as the Great Dane does that mean we can get one the size of Texas?

No, because logic would tell us otherwise: there are numerous inherent difficulties with any life form the size of a country. You can't take any one point alone.

That's exactly the point. Just because we see different breeds of canine doesn't mean that they share the same ancestor as bananas. There are limits in the gene pool.

And if that was all the evidence there was for evolution, you'd have a point.

And what evidence we have of canines coming from non-canines?

Define canine.
That's the problem with the typical anti-evolution arguments: they're grounded in bizarre defining, often relying on subtly different definitions of the same word on each setting. It's pretty clear dogs and wolves share a common ancestor which was likely a different species, because species is defined, scientifically, as something that cannot produce viable offspring. Dogs and wolves can breed (indicating similarity), and yet they are different species because the offspring itself is not fertile. Species, as a layperson defines it, is not so cut-and-dried as you'd think; there are grey areas.
This is pretty strong evidence of species divergence: one species becoming two, gradually getting further and further apart until there'll be no compatibility. If canine is taken to be dog-species, this indicates the possibility, deduction and logic gives the rest (barring supposition of unnecessary elements).

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines. Now what evidence you have that dogs and bananas share the common ancestor?

Humans and bananas share roughly 60% of their DNA.

The split between plants and animals was not directly but into plants and a group that includes both animals and fungi, about a billion years ago.

Plant cells and animal cells have some things in common and some differences.

Alike: Plant and animal cells have a plasma membrane, a nucleus, a nucleolus, mitochondria, ribosomes, endoplasmic recticulum, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, peroxisomes, and microtubles. Cells divide to form new cells.

Differences: Plant cells have centrioles or intermediate filaments.  They also have a more square shape and contain chloroplasts. Plants have a cell wall that is made up of fibrils of cellulose.  Plant cells produce their own food or energy.  Animal cells must obtain food from a source outside of the body.

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2015, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 23, 2015, 11:39:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2015, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?

If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2015, 09:04:02 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 23, 2015, 11:39:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2015, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?

If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.

Are you just going to dodge my question?  If so, then it seems this is just a mere bag of shells.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 25, 2015, 07:54:39 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2015, 09:04:02 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 23, 2015, 11:39:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2015, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?

If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.

Are you just going to dodge my question?  If so, then it seems this is just a mere bag of shells.

I don't mean to dodge your question. But to make sure, what specifically are you asking?

Quote from: Rama Set on December 24, 2015, 09:04:02 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 23, 2015, 11:39:26 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on December 23, 2015, 11:03:05 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2015, 04:45:03 PM

If they reproduce (fertle or nonfertle) children then there canines.

So if canines produce canines, they are canines?  That is a tautology not a definition. Perhaps you could try a real definition?

The definition of kind is basically the same as family.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.  Can you define canines as something other than, "That which gives birth to canines"?

If you can prove that let's say a cat came from a canine then that would be demontratable, testable, repeatable proof that evolution is true.

If you proved a cat was born from a canine you would have proven evolution wrong. Why does evolution stop at the family level (a totally arbitrary level stabilished for convenience, by the way)?