Evolution, Science, Faith - Lightning rod by leadb

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Note, I didn't say "government knows best". In fact, I too despise that attitude. What I was trying to get across was that professionals who've spent years training to teach children know best (In most cases).

Ok, I thought you were talking about laws and such, which is very much 'government'.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 8:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/education/08scores.html

Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.

The report http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp provides ammunition for critics who say that one national standard is needed. “Parents and communities in too many states are being told not to worry, all is well, when their students are far behind,” said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation who served in the Education Department during Mr. Bush’s first term.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ANTIMASON: In our story so far... Quote:
this is why i dont discount global 'god' myths, i think they all tell a similar story. what separates the abrahamic beliefs is the acknowledgement of the Creator of everything, and a prophesied messiah sent to redeem mankind. and thats where christianity becomes relevant to me, because i do believe Jesus was the Son of God- Antimason

Wha...? That in no way answers my question. If god, or gods, or God, created everything else first, and THEN man, how did humans (I don't care where) come to know about something that happened BEFORE humanity was even on the scene? Did the gods, or god, or God tell them about it shortly afterwards? And if you believe it was the "one true God" that created everyone- heathens included- what happened to "the story" that it should have changed so much? Or do you believe that God kept yakking with the Hebrews long after He stopped yakking with the others, and kept his "chosen people" on the correct path?- Signy
So I'm wondering how you explain your contention that the Biblical "origin" myths are based in fact, when according to the Bible all other creation occurred before humans were invented?

It seems to me that one would have to believe the Bible pretty literally.... that species were created not evolved, that God spoke with humans after their creation, and that God kept a convenant with his "chosen people" which kept "the Word" pure and accurate through however many years it was since creation. In other words, alhtough you tend to present yourself as a fairly broad-minded person who encompasses ID and other religion, in fact you're a fairly strict lieralist when it comes to the Bile. Correct?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
God kept a convenant with his "chosen people" which kept "the Word" pure and accurate through however many years it was since creation.

Which begs the question of how there are so many errors in any given translation of the Bible.

Quote:
in fact you're a fairly strict lieralist when it comes to the Bile. Correct?

Typo or Freudian slip?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh my! Bible!

Well, now we know how mistranslations occur!

(I shall write Bible on my dry-erase-board 100 times!)

---------------------------------
Blessed are the cheesemakers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 11:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070608/lf_afp/usevolutionreligion_070608
182238; _ylt=AgQgPwsQimHCGw5pvlsV0IvMWM0F

A full 66 percent said they believed in creationism, with 39 percent of those polled saying it was definitely true and 27 percent believing it was probably true.

More recently, the question divided Republican presidential candidates who traditionally represent the Christian conservative elements of US society, with three answering in last month's debate that they do not believe in evolution.

Idiots

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 2:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It takes a very special person to deny the evidence of their senses.

---------------------------------
Blessed are the cheesemakers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 3:13 PM

Part of the problem is it is not 'their senses'; most folks are not 'interested' enough in evolution to do their own research; they tend to accept what they were taught when they were young. They have to accept -someone-'s position; should they accept their cleric's position, whom they have been told to trust, or should they trust the information the scientists they have never met, and have been told has a political agenda against them?

Personally, I have no particular reason to trust either group (though with an admitted bias to the value of 'scientific peer review') completely; however, having looked over the various materials presented, I'm inclined to go with the 'natural evolution'; with the slight caveot I will accept that there may have been an 'Initiator' who started the whole ball rolling.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 3:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It points to the problem of poorly educated parents educating their own children or voting on what their children should learn.

If US parents want to educate their children in western madrassas then they will get the same result as Pakistan. And the US will end up with a poorly educated non-competative workforce sinking even further into gobal poverty. WHOO HOOO ! Who wouldn't want that ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Part of the problem is it is not 'their senses'; most folks are not 'interested' enough in evolution to do their own research; they tend to accept what they were taught when they were young. They have to accept -someone-'s position; should they accept their cleric's position, whom they have been told to trust, or should they trust the information the scientists they have never met, and have been told has a political agenda against them?

Personally, I have no particular reason to trust either group (though with an admitted bias to the value of 'scientific peer review') completely; however, having looked over the various materials presented, I'm inclined to go with the 'natural evolution'; with the slight caveot I will accept that there may have been an 'Initiator' who started the whole ball rolling.

People on both sides of this debate are certain they are right, despite the fact that neither side can produce real evidence to demonstrate their side. On one side you’ve got the religious argument that rests on faith, and they admit that they don’t really know what the answer is, but they believe it. On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position. Human beings do not live long enough to witness macroevolution and the fossil record is not complete enough, and very likely may never be. Yet evolutionists talk about it as if it’s fact, but when they are asked for “proof” the best they are able to do is show a mosquito evolving into another mosquito or a fruit fly evolving into another fruit fly. Now as a scientist, I understand the nuances here, but as a scientist I also can’t claim that this comes anywhere close to demonstrating macroevolution. For people who have other more important things to worry about, which is most people really, what they see is an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more honest, and therefore believable.

It also comes down to how the debate is framed and evolution supporters often attempt to argue evolution from the position of faith. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard people on the evolution side of this debate claim that they “believe” in evolution. No real scientist “believes” in evolution. It is a theory that is accepted or not accepted to one degree or another based on the available evidence. Some parts of it are pretty well founded; others aren’t much more then conjecture. Evolution may be good science, when it is science, but it is not good religion. And when evolution tries to go up against religion on the basis of belief, it will lose more often then not.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:39 PM

It's hard to keep the language clear, as well. I should rather say that 'Within the bounds of the observable world, I accept evolution, including macro-evolution.' That ends the bounds of science. To state I am willing to grant there may have been an 'Initiator' of the universe (ie: perhaps something triggered the big bang, a 'crafter' of the universe) muddles the issue as you are(or in this case, I am) crossing the bounds where science is currently useful to that which it is not (at least at this time). It gets tiresome to spell that all out each time; but any time you don't, someone is libel to come along and be honestly confused by the lack of differentiation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn, your arguments are dishonest. I know you pretend to take the moral high ground, but really, your political agendas drive you to lying. Take a step back and try to straighten out the soul you think you have.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:58 PM

And then there is this mean-spirited resentment that comes from some on the evolution side, which doesn’t help either. Unfortunately, both sides have their fanatics, but I think it penalizes the evolution side more then it does the religious side.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, your arguments are dishonest. I know you pretend to take the moral high ground, but really, your political agendas drive you to lying. Take a step back and try to straighten out the soul you think you have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 6:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
On the other side, you’ve got the evolutionists, who insist that their side is factual, yet they can’t really produce evidence for it.

This is utterly false. There's gobs of evidence. The ID capacity for denying the evidence is stunning, but it doesn't change the reality of what's staring us all in the face.

Quote:
I don’t think anyone really has a problem with natural selection. What is really the stickler is this macroevolution idea, which is a wholly improvable position.

You're gonna have to explain this. ID folks throw this concept around as though it's not just made up bs. WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN? What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Where does one take over and the other kick in?

This is so simplistic it seems dumb to have to argue it. How hard can it be to realize that lots of small changes make for a big overall change. You're essentially denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

Quote:
For people who have other more important things to worry about, which is most people really, what they see is an idiot trying to tell them that one mosquito is different from another, when in fact they’re both mosquitoes. Quite frankly, the religious side comes across much more honest, and therefore believable.

Right, the religious side has more 'truthiness'

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock[/i

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is utterly false. There's gobs of evidence. The ID capacity for denying the evidence is stunning, but it doesn't change the reality of what's staring us all in the face.

There is a lot of evidence for some parts of evolution. As I said, some parts of it are well-founded, but others are not. But too often, what I see are people on the evolution side demanded that the existence of evidence, even conclusive evidence, for some part of evolution theory requires the acceptance or the “belief” in all of the theory. But in the end, the evidence is just not their. As Leadb said, this is, to a large degree, a product of the imprecision in the language used, but it’s also, I think, a desire to create a mutually exclusive argument, where one is intimated into accepting evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're gonna have to explain this. ID folks throw this concept around as though it's not just made up bs. WHAT DOES IT EVEN MEAN? What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Where does one take over and the other kick in?

Microevolution refers to a change in an organism below the level of species, such as phenotype. Macroevolution refers to a change in an organism at or above the level of species, such as a cow changing into a whale. Strictly speaking from a scientific perspective, when one species of mosquito changes into another species of mosquito, that is actually evidence for Macroevolution. The problem is that then evolutionist run with this as “proof” that cows evolve into whales, but that one mosquito can become another mosquito is not evidence that cows can evolve into whales. While it is enticing evidence for those that understand the nuances, it is not really evidence for the larger implication of macroevolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is so simplistic it seems dumb to have to argue it. How hard can it be to realize that lots of small changes make for a big overall change. You're essentially denying that 1 + 1 = 2.

I’m not denying any such thing, but you are demanding that I accept an argument, regardless of the evidence, because you find it logical. But that’s not how science works. That’s how religion works. In science, it doesn’t matter whether the argument is logical or not, if there is no evidence for it. Frankly, you’re insinuations are insulting, and therein lies the real problem. You’re calling me stupid for not (hypothetically) accepting that cows (or some predecessor) evolved into whales on the bases of a mosquito becoming another mosquito. You don’t know it yet, but you’ve just lost the argument, because I’m less inclined to sympathize with the evolution argument. You’ve just made it look irrational. And that’s my point. That’s the mistake the evolution side makes. The religious side does this as well, but it works on the religious side because there is no evidentiary requirement for religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Bullshit.

We've been through this argument at least five times already for you to know that you are lying.

First of all: SCIENCE NEVER PROVES ANYTHING. Now either you can't grasp this simple concept no matter how many times it's repeated, or you love to lie. Any argument that either demands scientific proof or claims victory on the absence of proof is a flat-out manipulative lie.

Second, NOT ALL SCIENCE IS EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE. That doesn't make it any less valid. Do you dispute theories of gravity because you can't watch it or change it in the lab?

Finally, THERE ARE MANY TRANSITION FORMS BETWEEN SPECIES, BOTH FOSSIL AND EXTANT. This is so well established that to deny it puts you on par with PJenny.

Stop spreading your brand of bullshit lies. And think about why it is you are so compelled to base your ego on your oily brand of bullshit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Microevolution refers to a change in an organism below the level of species, such as phenotype. Macroevolution refers to a change in an organism at or above the level of species, such as a cow changing into a whale.

WTF??? A cow changing into a whale? If this is your understanding of how evolution works, then I see why it seems implausible to you. But really, check it out. That's not what the theory predicts.

So, I'll ask again, what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? You've said they're changes at different levels, but what is a change at a higher level, if not the summation of many changes at a lower levels? It's merely a matter of magnitude. You do realize that designations such as 'species' and 'phenotype' are observed categories, not distinct boundaries, right?

Quote:
...While it is enticing evidence for those that understand the nuances, it is not really evidence for the larger implication of macroevolution.

Why not?

Quote:
You’re calling me stupid for not (hypothetically) accepting that cows (or some predecessor) evolved into whales...

I'm calling you stupid for saying that evolution entails cows 'turning into' whales. But I don't think you really are that stupid. I think that rue is right, your arguments are dishonest. They're nothing but sophistry and deliberate fallacy.

Quote:
You don’t know it yet, but you’ve just lost the argument, because I’m less inclined to sympathize with the evolution argument...

You're assuming I'm trying to convince you, or win your sympathy. That's not the case. I just get tired of all the bullshit that shoveled these days in the name of 'debate'. A lot of us have been lazy and allowed insidious demagoguery to dominate public discourse. It's high time we called you on it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
WTF??? A cow changing into a whale? If this is your understanding of how evolution works, then I see why it seems implausible to you. But really, check it out. That's not what the theory predicts.

Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

I’ve explained to you what microevolution and macroevolution are as they are understood by science. I think I’ve made my case extremely well (or rather you and rue have made my case for me) for why so many people tend to sympathize with creationism as opposed to evolution. I think that when the evolution side of the debate can set aside its irrational and pejorative approach to other ideas, then I think you’ll begin to see a greater appreciation for evolution theory among the larger public. Until then acceptance is going to be slow.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

That's what I thought. You do understand and choose to deliberately mis-characterize it. That's what I mean by dishonest.

Quote:
I think I’ve made my case extremely well ...

That depends on what your case is, which is still a bit murky. You seem to be saying that folks won't accept evolution unless we dumb it down to "cows magically turning into whales". I'm not quite that cynical about the average human's intelligence. I think they can understand it just fine if they can cut through the fog being continuously pumped into the public consciousness.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That depends on what your case is, which is still a bit murky. You seem to be saying that folks won't accept evolution unless we dumb it down to "cows magically turning into whales".

“Magically?” That’s your word, not mine. I'm not dumbing anything down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 8:36 PM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.

You don't seem to understand the difference between evidence and proof. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, but we haven't been studying it long enough to see profound, obvious changes that would utterly destroy any shadow of a doubt (I'm sure though, that even if we do find such proof, there would still be a bunch of jackasses trying to convince everyone that it's not true).

Something I've been asking myself for a while now is, how is dog breeding (or selective breeding of any kind) different from evolution? The answer: It's not. It is simply a forced version of what's known as "Geographic Isolation". Geographic Isolation is when creatures can't mate because of a physical barrier between them. According to the theory, over time, the creatures on either side of the barrier begin to develope different traits because of different mating choices.

That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.

Rue, you need to calm down. You're not going to convince anyone by calling them a liar and telling them how stupid they are. In fact, all it does is hurt your case in the eyes of those on the sidelines. Finn isn't one of the Pirates; he will listen to reason if you present your case well.

[img]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yeah I have checked it out. Maybe you should take your own advice. Whales evolved from early ungulates, basically early cow-like animals (at least that's the theory). Look it up.

Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.

Yes it is based on evidence. I don’t think the evidence is as strong as some do. It’s certainly strong enough to convince me and I think when presented in a rational, concise and fair-minded way many people would accept it. But I can also see how the evidence would not be compelling to some. And I think it is a mistake to personally attack these people, because all such rhetoric does is transform Evolution theory from a science into a radical dogma. I think it does more harm to the evolution side of the argument then good. In fact, I can’t see what good it does at all. And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.

That’s an example of microevolution, although as a result of artificial, instead of natural, selection.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species. It doesn't take "magic" to go from one species type to another. All it takes is to turn on a few genes earlier- or later- to stunt to growth of one thing and enhance the growth of something else and... viola ... hair turns into feathers.

And yes, I meant specifically "evidence of their senses". Anyone who has ever picked a piece of shale out of a creekbed and found a trilobite fossil has got to realize that the fossil formed with the rock. Maybe we need more hands-on learning. Then it wouldn't be a matter of "trust".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Yes, and do you know what that theory is based on? EVIDENCE. Fossil, and bone evidence.
Yes it is based on evidence. I don’t think the evidence is as strong as some do. It’s certainly strong enough to convince me and I think when presented in a rational, concise and fair-minded way many people would accept it. But I can also see how the evidence would not be compelling to some. And I think it is a mistake to personally attack these people, because all such rhetoric does is transform Evolution theory from a science into a radical dogma. I think it does more harm to the evolution side of the argument then good. In fact, I can’t see what good it does at all. And that is actually my point, not that there is no evidence for evolution.
Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
That is exactly how breeding works. You pick an animal with traits you want in the next generation, pair it up with another animal with traits you want in the next generation, then see what happens. Eventually, you end up with an entirely different breed.
That’s an example of microevolution, although as a result of artificial, instead of natural, selection.

Yes, and for all the wide divergence of dogs, to the best of my knowledge any breed can reproduce with any other and you end up with a viable, reproductive mutt.

Of interest, you can cross breed a donkey and horse; and get a mule. The mule, however, is incapable of breeding. I personally find this to be an interesting point on the evolution side... speciation, but ... not quite. Clearly, the two lines will never permanenty 'cross' to merge donkey's and horses back 'together' since the offspring cannot reproduce.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW there is current evidence of new species forming through hybridization, most recently in butterflies.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 11:26 AM

KANEMAN

"Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species'

As you would expect if all life was created by one entity.........Creation theory predicts as much......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:23 PM

ANTIMASON

i really dont like feeding into this discussion, because no one knows for sure

Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-

1. Fossils don't form on command, fossilization is quite rare. The example I heard was of the passenger pigeon, there used to be millions if not billions of passenger pigeons just a couple centuries ago, now they are extinct, try and find a fossil passenger pigeon.

fossilization IS rare, i agree.. but what we do have, currently, doesnt suggest to me the kind of evolution we're speculating about. we have fossils of various species over allegedly millions of years.. so we should have better evidence then we do

Quote:
2. That being said there are millions of fossils, all fitting into a nested hierarchy exactly as common descent predicts.

so what form did a cat posses before now? or this whale? you cant even imagine the damned things! i think we need a much more vast collection to be sure, and all i hear are mostly anecdotel examples

Quote:
3. You want a perfect, smooth continuum of fossils, that's not what exists because it's not what should exist, the speed and direction of evolution is not uniform and hasn't been expected to be uniform for a very long time.

i do. without that i dont see how we can know for sure. i dont understand how speculation, about events millions of years ago, can be considered legitimate science. we dont possess the lifespans to witness these huge eventual changes, so what else is there besides the fossil record? if we have dinosaur fossils preserved, we should also have the various mammals. we're basing the whale evidence off a vistigial organ or something? where are any land fossils to suggest this?

Quote:
Evolution causes species to adapt to their environment, once a certain level of adaptation is achieved it becomes more expensive then it is worth to continue adapting and a sort of evolutionary stasis is achieved. When a shift in environment or a novel mutation occurs that breaks the stasis evolution will cause the species to adapt rapidly to the new environment before returning to stasis. Most fossils will be found in the stasis plateaus rather then the change periods since the vast majority of creatures will have been born and died during the stasis instead of the period of rapid change.

thats speculation though, human history hasnt observed these kinds of changes. im sure theoretically youre right, if you accept your premise that all life is evolving over billions of years... but thats just your lens

Quote:
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

Quote:
Your inability to accept this due to dogmatism is not a fault of lack of evidence, if we had the fossils of every creature that ever lived you would still simply say "not good enough", or pick a new complaint without admitting error.

i would recognize that it supports your claims. but so far it doesnt.

Quote:
The vast majority of it was destroyed before it had the chance to fossilize, most of what did fossilize is still buried, much of what's been dug up is sitting in drawers waiting to be looked at by paleontologists, some of what has been looked at by paleontologists is too fragmented to come to a conclusion.

'but theres probably all kinds of fossils, all over the earth that havent been uncovered'.. probably.. but is that proof? maybe, who-knows, 'if'.. sad what goes for scientific evidence these days. now if you want to call it a belief, worldview, or a religion(in which there are NO transcendent laws or morals, everything just happened), then you may, and we can be honost with eachother when we discuss 'millions of years ago'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"Finn, you are also ignoring the gobs of biochemical evidence that indicates that some animals are closely related, and some DNA is conserved across many species'

As you would expect if all life was created by one entity.........Creation theory predicts as much......

1. One of the reasons "creation science" is not scientific is that anything can be made to fit easily. For instance you say that creationism would predict that things would be similar, but wouldn't it be just as easy for a creator to make things that are widely disparate and not having an appearance of being related? Of course, thus both models fit perfectly into creationism. Creationism accommodates everything and thus is perfectly useless from a scientific standpoint.

2. I can see a Creator making a bunch of roughly similar creatures, I can't see said Creator making a bunch of creatures that fit perfectly into a nested hierarchy. The only plausible reason (that I can see) would be to make us think that a mechanism like evolution was in effect.

And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence.

*sigh* Evolution is not atheistic, evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a god. The only theological influence that evolution has is that certain specific beliefs are incorrect. By that measure you should be against geology for showing us that the Earth is ancient, astronomy for showing that the Earth revolves around the sun (contrary to popular Christian belief back in the Dark Ages), physiology for showing that men and women have the same number of ribs and on and on. The fact that reality doesn't conform to your specific religious beliefs does not mean that reality disproves god, it merely means that your interpretation is wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AntiM

"so what form did a cat posses before now? or this whale?"

That answer is at ...

If you promise to actually visit the site and never bring this idiocy up again I'll find it for you. B/c this was a HUGE discussion in which you took part, and the answer WAS posted. So why do you keep bringing it up? Rather than saying something about your intellect, I'd rather assume you never went to the site.

Do you PROMISE to actually READ it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

Fredgiblet mentioned this as well, but the statement is at the heart of the ID movement and it puzzles me. It's really not scientists, for the most part, who see this as a belief issue. I'd wager most scientists who study the topic and understand how evolution works, still maintain religious belief. It's the ID people who are pushing the issue as a false dichotomy of science or religion..

I guess I just don't understand why it's so important to take the stories of the bible literally. Especially when you consider that the vocabulary for the processes of evolution didn't even exist when the bible was written. Let's take as an assumption that he bible is true and inspired by God. For the sake of discussion,let's also assume that God used evolution to facilitate His creation. How would He describe this process? If He wanted the people of the time to be able to understand it, it would be pretty pointless to go into all the detail of genetic mutation and the like. Wouldn't it be better to go with an abstract metaphor that hits all the salient points without requiring more knowledge than the readers could be expected to have?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
posted by fredgiblet-
4. The fossil record is conclusive enough for some of the most skeptical people in the world, scientists.

for an atheist scientist, its conclusive enough to conclude that there is no Creator or higher intelligence. but to anyone else, the evidence is not all that conclusive proportionate to the claims

What? Why are we bringing in atheist scientists? When did this become a discussion about atheists????? An atheist doesn't believe God exists, why do you care what he thinks is or isn't support for the existance of God. No matter -what- an atheist takes as supporting the lack of existance of God should not matter to you, he's an atheist. Most scientists I know will say it is rubbish to conclude that God does not exist based on this type of information. Please, please stop mixing the two.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 8:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
over allegedly millions of years...

Allegedly millions of years? Now what? Do you feel that rock strata and uranium decay are just more tricks by God to make us think that the earth is really really old? So now you not only question evolution, you kick geology, physics, and chemistry down the hole too? Jeez Anti, why not reject medicine and mathematics and the rest of the sciences while you're at it?

Quote:
and all i hear are mostly anecdotel examples

If you would actually read some science... or better yet, go out in the field and collect some data yourself... you might gather more information than "anecdotes". Why don't you start with the La Brea Tar Pits in LA? Very accessible. I've been there many times. You can see them pull up all kinds of bones out of the tar.

Quote:
we don't possess the lifespans to witness these huge eventual changes,

We don't posssess eyes to see electrons either, but that doesn't seem to stop you from using the computer.

Quote:
so what else is there besides the fossil record?

Um, I mentioned this already- DNA evidence in nested hierarchies. And observeable traits in nested heirarchies. Both of them match the fossil record rather well.

Quote:
if we have dinosaur fossils preserved, we should also have the various mammals.

We do. As I said, go to the La Brea Tar Pits. There are all kinds of mammals fossils.

Quote:
we're basing the whale evidence off a vistigial organ or something? where are any land fossils to suggest this?

Why would God create vestigial organs, just OOC? If an animal adapts from ocean to land or vice versa, I would not expect many transitional fossils because they would likely be deposited on beaches, and that wave action has a nasty habit of turning everything into little teeny tiny smooth round pebbbles.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 9, 2007 8:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anti, since you're so busy trying to pick holes in evolution ... and dragging the rest of the sciences in too while you're at it, I have a question for you: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN FOSSILS? What is the Biblical explanation for what appears to be mineralized remains of life forms - both extant and extinct- that have been incorporated in rock?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Keeping my question front and center for Anti.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'd wager most scientists who study the topic and understand how evolution works, still maintain religious belief. It's the ID people who are pushing the issue as a false dichotomy of science or religion..

The vast majority of biologists are religious. The ID movement pushes that dichotomy partly because of their literalist interpretation of the Bible and partly because even relatively weak Christians can be roused to action if they are told their religion is under attack.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.

All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly. This is all you can show, because this is all there is, right now. It takes a real leap of faith to say this has “proven” macroevolution. It has not, and anyone can see that. If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
And Finn, I've said it before, I've produced links before, Macroevolution has been proven, the gist of your arguments seems to be "I don't think that qualifies as macroevolution", speciation is macroevolution, speciation has been observed, macroevolution is true.
All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly.

Right...that's macroevolution. Once again. Speciation. Is. Macroevolution. We have observed speciation, macroevolution has been observed

Quote:
If Macroevolution were “proven” there wouldn’t be any reason for the experiments to begin with, because scientists don’t study what has already been “proven.”

1. Proving that it happens and understanding how it happens are two different things. We know that speciation (read: macroevolution) happens, but our knowledge of how is incomplete, like how many changes are necessary to produce reproductive isolation? How many non-critical changes can occur before reproduction becomes more difficult? Questions like that can only be answered by more observation.

2. Speciation events are interesting in their own right, scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity because the fact that stuff falls isn't very interesting. Speciation (whether induced or simply observed in the world) is interesting, and provides us with more data and better insights into how it happens and by extension how evolution works.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
All you’ve shown is that a mosquito can evolve into an other mosquito or a fruit fly can evolve into another fruit fly...

So, from this point of view, how many changes would it take for the fruit fly to no longer be a fruit fly? You seem to be acknowledging the role of evolution in producing small changes, but denying that these changes would add up, over time, to large changes. Are you suggesting there's some natural limit to variation? A sort of 'center of gravity' for a species that is adhered to?

What prevents many small changes from adding up to big changes over long periods of time?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
1. Proving that it happens and understanding how it happens are two different things. We know that speciation (read: macroevolution) happens, but our knowledge of how is incomplete, like how many changes are necessary to produce reproductive isolation? How many non-critical changes can occur before reproduction becomes more difficult? Questions like that can only be answered by more observation.

Also whether or not an organism can actually evolve into something else, which we have not demonstrated, and would seem to be fairly critical to Macroevolution. And it’s not the same thing as speciation, if it were, we would call it speciation. We don’t. We call it macroevolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
2. Speciation events are interesting in their own right, scientists don't do experiments to prove gravity because the fact that stuff falls isn't very interesting. Speciation (whether induced or simply observed in the world) is interesting, and provides us with more data and better insights into how it happens and by extension how evolution works.

Scientist do experiments concerning gravity. But if we decided that because we can show an apple falling to the earth had “proven” the Theory of Gravity, then there wouldn’t be any reason for Einstein because Newton has already “proven” it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
What prevents many small changes from adding up to big changes over long periods of time?

I don’t know. But not knowing is not “proof.”

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing, and therefore demanding "proof" is unscientific. Right now we have an explanation for a rather impressive collection of evidence, it's called "evolution", and it seems to be generally supported through several approaches: geological/ paleantological, biochemical (nuclear and mitochndrial DNA), and observeable traits. To give you an example, there are a humans, chimps, and gorillas. Current features would indicate they are more closely related to each other than to- say- elephants. DNA says the same. Fossils indicate intermediate hominids. Evolution seems to explain all of this evidence rather nicely.

If you don't like the explanation of evolution, what is YOUR explanation?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- As a scientist you SHOULD know that science "proves" nothing, and therefore demanding "proof" is unscientific.

I do know that. Why don't you explain that to Fred? Who claims that macroevolution has been “proven?”

Maybe because he's telling you what you want to hear? That's a real scientific way to evaluate evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But not knowing is not “proof.”

It's not about proof. It's an explanation. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. Like the Theory of Gravity. It's an attempt to explain observed facts. Speciation is an observed fact that is explained, plausibly and logically, by genetic evolution. If you have a problem with the theory, it would indicate you don't think it is sensible explanation.

So, what is implausible, or not sensible, about lots of small changes adding up to large ones? You seem to be evading this question, but I'm not really trying to confront you as much as understand this point of view. I honestly don't get it.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
But not knowing is not “proof.”

It's not about proof. It's an explanation. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution. Like the Theory of Gravity. It's an attempt to explain observed facts. Speciation is an observed that is explained, plausibly and logically, but genetic evolution. If you have a problem with the theory, it would indicate you don't think it is sensible explanation.

Explain that to Fred, and all the other people on the evolution side who dogmatically demand that Evolution is “proven.”

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
So, what is implausible about lots of small changes adding up to large ones? You seem to be evading this question, but I'm not really trying to confront you as much as understand this point of view. I honestly don't get it.

I answered your question. Just because you rephrase the question, doesn’t mean you can accuse me of evading it. As far as your new question is concerned: my answer is that I don’t see anything implausible about it.

I really don’t understand why you don’t get it. I don’t really believe in personal attacks, although my frustration has gotten the better of me sometimes, so I’m not going to define my position on evolution as “Creationists are stupid.” Furthermore, I’m a scientist, so I’m not going to define my position on evolution as some undeniable dogma. I don’t think it is that hard to argue evolution as a theory as it is meant to be argued and avoid attacking people’s person who disagrees. The issue was raised earlier in this thread that some people found it alarming or unnerving that so many people claimed to sympathize with Creationism as opposed to Evolution or along with Evolution. I don’t find it that difficult to believe. My point from the very beginning of my participation in this discussion has been ‘what makes the evolution side of this debate (as it is typically portrayed) any different from the way evolutionist see Creationism?’ Nothing. So why should anyone expect that there would really be a big difference in the number of people who sympathize with Creationism as opposed to Evolution. Both sides think their right, but what most people see is two dogmatic and defensive positions that differ only in semantics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Let's look at botany, which is a less controversial field. Many decades ago botanists created a very detailed "family tree" (so to speak) of plant relationships based on their characteristics, and fossilized plants. They used the theory of evolution to describe when plants speciated from each other - at least relatively, this one earliest, that one latest. Then along came PCR and the ability to study genetic similarities in detail, and amazingly the genetic family tree was almost perfectly predicted by the fossil/morphology family tree. If the success of a theory is judged by its ability to predict, then the concept of evolution is a clear winner, at least in this instance. There really doesn't seem to be a competing theory that explains and predicts as well as evolution. To demand that you see evolution in action right in front of your eyes- a process that admittedly takes millions of years- is a little like demanding that everyone take cyanide to prove that it's a deadly poison.

Nonetheless, scientist have re-created a species of butterfly currently found in the wild by hybridization of two other species, and this potential pathway of evolution doesn't apply just to butterflies.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060616135623.htm

In addition, microbes are well-known to exchange bits of DNA, even between species. And finally, different characteristics are often developed from the SAME genetic material by simply turning genes on and off at different times. So there are a lot more pathways to species creation than just mutation, or selection from natural variation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:54 AM

I believe a significant portion of the struggle here is the specific language being used; and due to the struggles this issue has gone through over the years.

In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'. -Several- people have used the work 'proven' above, and this seems to wrankle Finn. It is better to be precise and use the right word or phrase.

Eventually, if science works right, competing theories winnow down; normally given weights by various proponents; additional information is gathered which shifts the consensus. Hopefully, over time, theories go from being 'speculative' to 'somewhat accepted' to 'generally accepted' (I'm a bit vague on the exact language used, I tried to find a standard nomenclature for the process but failed to find one); while doing so the 'competing' theories fall to the wayside.

SignyM's post is an excellent statement of how the theory of evolution continues to well predict things which we can now determine to match; for instance the nature of the DNA relationship.

One thing -I- find irksome is the misuse by the YEC (Young Earth Creation) folk of the term 'predict' in their presentions; they have a tendency to 'rationalize' subsequent discoveries and call it 'prediction'; the problem is that they failed to make the prediction prior to the determination. As a consquence this is not a case of prediction, but rather a modification (however minor) to simply assume in the new information. They would be better off, in my book, to simply honestly say 'we believe this is consistent with our position' (or not, but the point is to avoid the use of the term 'predict' unless they really did).

I believe the theory of evolution is, in scientific circles, 'generally accepted' at this time. The gaps are rapidly being filled by our quickly expanding understanding of DNA and how it behaves. Even so, it would be better to avoid the word 'proven', and go with 'generally accepted'. I know this seems like 'hedging', but it is more techncially correct. If one likes, you can throw in that 'any "scientific" theory placing the age of the universe as less than 100,000 years old has no support what-so-ever in legitimate scientific circles'. With any luck, this will get the YEC's to identify themselves, and you can work them down with the mountains of scientific data that support billion + (generally about 13.7 ) year old universe (with a time starting from the 'big bang').

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
In generally, theories in science are 'strictly speaking' not 'proven'.

Agreed, but the facts supporting them can be proven. The observed facts of reproduction and genetics, of species changing over time, of adaptation and natural selection - are all well proven. Evolution is a theory that uses these facts to explain the diverse, yet related, variance among the species.

So, asking for proof of a theory doesn't really make sense. You can disprove, or weaken, a theory with facts that contradict the theory's explanations. You can also add authority to a theory by testing any predictions that can logically be made from it's premises.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 11, 2007 4:26 PM