Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[McBell]

Your response is an example of the antagonism and ridicule many evolution supporters employ toward the increasing numbers of scientists and others raising doubts about the evolution theory.

I know you will not understand this, but.....
merely repeating the same old lies and falsehoods does not make the lies and falsehoods truths.

 

[McBell]

I am aware of how much evidence refutes the theory. Have you examined that evidence?

ONLY if one dilutes the definition of "evidence" to point of uselessness...
But then, creationists are famous for such dishonesty

 

[columbus]

2. Accordingly, the animals that are fossilized are aberrations. Agree or disagree?

Here is where we disagree.
The circumstances under which any given organisms remains fossilize are rare. But there is no reason to think that the organisms are aberrations themselves. They are a representative sampling of the living things that died. They just happened to get covered with silt or something and preserved.
The conditions don't happen often, but they are a random sampling of organisms that are ordinary.
Tom

 

[McBell]

That would change the meaning of what you said.

What i am trying to figure out is if you mean:

A.) That the actual process of fossilisation requires a set of circumstances specific enough that the formation of a fossil is an anomaly?

or

B.) That the individuals who have been fossilised are morphologically different from the rest of its species?

Based upon the way his list was presented, it looks like he means B.

 

[Zosimus]

That would change the meaning of what you said.

No, it wouldn't. Apparently, you don't understand what I mean. So let me try to explain it as clearly as possible.

Most dead animals do not form fossils. Therefore, any fossil that forms is unusual. It's atypical. It's rare. It's an aberration. It's an anomaly–an oddity–a peculiarity, even. It's a quirk of nature. It's an irregularity. It's an incongruity with what we expect to happen–an inconsistency, if you will. It's a deviation–a freak of nature.

My thesaurus is exhausted. I'll have to end the post now.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Based upon the way his list was presented, it looks like he means B.

That's the impression that i get. But it makes no sense, so i am double checking that that is what he is meaning before answering the last two questions.

 

[Zosimus]

Here is where we disagree.
The circumstances under which any given organisms remains fossilize are rare. But there is no reason to think that the organisms are aberrations themselves. They are a representative sampling of the living things that died.

Speculation. You have no reason to believe that the fossils in question are a representative sampling of the living things that died.

They just happened to get covered with silt or something and preserved.
The conditions don't happen often, but they are a random sampling of organisms that are ordinary.

I completely disagree. Sure, it's possible that they are a random sample, but it's unlikely and unprovable.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

No, it wouldn't. Apparently, you don't understand what I mean. So let me try to explain it as clearly as possible.

Most dead animals do not form fossils. Therefore, any fossil that forms is unusual. It's atypical. It's rare. It's an aberration. It's an anomaly–an oddity–a peculiarity, even. It's a quirk of nature. It's an irregularity. It's an incongruity with what we expect to happen–an inconsistency, if you will. It's a deviation–a freak of nature.

My thesaurus is exhausted. I'll have to end the post now.

OK so your thesis statement in this discussion is that fossils cannot be trusted, because only abnormal examples of a species can be fossilised?

 

[columbus]

Most dead animals do not form fossils. Therefore, any fossil that forms is unusual.

Fossils are unusual, even aberrant, rocks.
But the original organisms were not. Its the organisms that are being studied.
Tom

 

[columbus]

You have no reason to believe that the fossils in question are a representative sampling of the living things that died.

Yes I do. The circumstances that result in a fossil could happen to most any creatures.
Why do you think that unlikely?
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I generally have a problem with best-fit theories being accepted on the level of something like the theory of relativity. (which has been proven out with data) Here are legit complaints:

1) DNA, genes, and other markers such as this degrade too quickly in most cases and we are unable to actually confirm anything past say 30k years. So we know our own family tree up to that point, and know exactly who is related through that material to that point. Past that point...

2) Everything past the 30k mark is speculative. Things look like this or that so they are classified together, etc. It's barely science and mostly educated guessing. That includes taxonomic guessing as well. That means we can say chimps are 98% like us because of modern DNA, but have no idea in an actual sense if we were once directly related or that isn't just some freak coincidence. We share similar DNA with a lot of creatures such as various plants, cats, dogs, etc. We are literally biologically similar to everything else on the planet in some way, but whether there is a lineage or not is questionable because it is possible that similar "evolution" occurred in two places at once. If it did, then we don't know it and lack the ability to say. If it does occur like this, then our taxonomic understanding would be inaccurate.

I'm mostly middle-of-the-road with the concept, and I accept what we can prove through DNA and reject the best-fit information -- at least until we can prove it.

Yes, most of the 'evidence' for evolution, is mirrored in an automobile junk yard- complete with gaps, jumps, shared traits, examples of prolonged stasis, but a general trend towards bigger and better.

All the millions of significant design improvements occurring by complete fluke.. would similarly be a far simpler, easier explanation for this evidence superficially, but starts to look increasingly problematic on delving into the details

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Yes, most of the 'evidence' for evolution, is mirrored in an automobile junk yard- complete with gaps, jumps, shared traits, examples of prolonged stasis, but a general trend towards bigger and better.

All the millions of significant design improvements occurring by complete fluke.. would similarly be a far simpler, easier explanation for this evidence superficially, but starts to look increasingly problematic on delving into the details

One thing a junk yard is missing is a self replication mechanism.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Now that i have clarified your position, i can answer these questions.

1. Not every animal that dies is fossilized. Agree or disagree?

Agree

2. Accordingly, the animals that are fossilized are aberrations. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. Because aberrations are less likely to be fossilised (because aberrations by their very nature are less likely to occur therefore less likely to be the individual that gets fossilised).

3. Since the fossils that exist are aberrations, there is no reason to believe that they are typical of the species as a whole. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. Because premise 2 is unfounded.

4. Since fossils are not typical of the species as a whole, it is dangerous and misleading to make inferrences about the species as a whole from fossils. Agree or disagree?

Disagree because premise 3 is unfounded.

 

[secret2]

With all the heats generated by this fossil debate, let me also point out that evolutionary biology's reliance on fossil evidence was due to our previous lack of understandings of the underlying mechanisms (genes and DNA). Things have, to put it mildly, changed since Darwin's time.

 

[Segev Moran]

All right–let's take it from the beginning to see where we disagree. I will post a few statements and you respond either agree or disagree. We'll take it from there.

1. Not every animal that dies is fossilized. Agree or disagree?
2. Accordingly, the animals that are fossilized are aberrations. Agree or disagree?
3. Since the fossils that exist are aberrations, there is no reason to believe that they are typical of the species as a whole. Agree or disagree?
4. Since fossils are not typical of the species as a whole, it is dangerous and misleading to make inferrences about the species as a whole from fossils. Agree or disagree?

Your assumption was true if only several fossils were found...
But there are thousands upon thousands of fossils all matching the prediction made by the Evolution theory.

The important thing to understand is the predictions, and a lot of people who are less educated about how the scientific world works, are lacking the prediction concept.

When you have a theory, one of the important thing that you want to have is the ability to predict things and find them as true.
So if according to the evolution theory the species we know today were all "descendants" of earlier species, the prediction will be that we will find fossils that are of species that are a "mid" stage evolution between current species and older ones.
As it seems until today, each and every verified fossil (There are a lot of fakes) match the predictions made by the TOE...

So the fossils are not what caused making the assumptions, the assumptions were made before the fossils were found.
The fossils only provide evidence that the predictions were true.

There is a big difference in the way you look at things...

So for example:

If i assume based on a theory that all red creatures were once green... and that the transition occurred over a time span of say 1000 years (That only an example yes?, don't catch on to the facts here )
I would expect to find evidence of "mid" colored creatures that are dates during the past 1000 years.

So based on the theory i have the assumption, now each "mid" creature i find endorses the assumption making it more and more reliable.
If for example, I would have found no evidence of that transition of color, the theory will not be valid yet (and will actually not be a theory rather a thesis or an Idea).
If for example i am to find an evidence that contradict the assumption, Then the theory will become false.

So far, There no evidence that contradicts the evolution process, and thousands of evidence that support the assumptions and predictions of it.

Besides that, The evolution theory relays on a lot more than just fossils like our (all beings, not just humans) DNA structure, Genes, biological treats ETC.

 

[Segev Moran]

Throw a dart...

Let me guess..
The earth is not really a sphere!!!!
Oh oh... nope.. the landing of the moon is actually a conspiracy of the entire world to make america glorified...
Oh Oh...! Medicine doesn't really work! You should pray and everything will be ok..

Thrown a dart here and it just hit a whole lot of conspiracy theories made by people who have zero knowledge and understanding of the thing they claim to be false...
So i would very much like an example just to understand what is your angel..

I'm not saying there are no charlatans.. and scientist are all nothing but truth..
But i would love hearing about something...

I could give an example of science being "shut down" in order to lie to the public... but that's a whole different thing (Like the led in gasoline for example)

 

[Shia Islam]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

The scientific community has it norms and boundraies...
Many people have published papers

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

The scientific community has its norms and boundaries...

Many scientists have published papers regarding this issue..

It is not a valley for free speech..

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not a valley for free speech.

Tis more complicated than that.
I was just reading about Dr Pinkel, the first director at St Jude Hospital.
He & his crew actually developed a cure for ALL (acute lymphoblastic leukemia).
They published the results, & came under some pretty severe criticism.
One other doc even accused them of fraud.
So Pinkel invited the guy to see the patients & results up close & personal.
He came away convinced, & a new champion of the work at St Jude.

So as we see, scientists can be hostile to new ideas.
But they can be won over with evidence & cogent reasoning.
Creationists have a problem in that they've no real scientific argument.
The same fate is endured by astrologists, phrenologists, palm readers, & psychics.

 

[Zosimus]

OK so your thesis statement in this discussion is that fossils cannot be trusted, because only abnormal examples of a species can be fossilised?

All right! So you cannot understand simple words, cannot understand synonyms, and cannot use a dictionary.

Let's try a simple example.

Let's assume that a certain now-extinct species of fish swam off the coast of Peru in the Pacific Ocean in the past. This fish customarily swam at 100 meters depth in waters that ranged from 150 to 300 meters in depth. Few, if any, fish are fossilized during this period because the fish are extremely unlikely to get covered in silt. However, once every 6 years, the meteorological phenomenon called "El Niño" strikes the Pacific Ocean. Now fish don't swim by depth–they swim by temperature. So as the surface water warms, the fish will swim deeper in the ocean at the temperature that feels right to the fish. So during El Niño years, the fish will swim closer to the bottom. Accordingly, the likelihood of fossilization is vastly greater. Fossils exist from this period, and scientists are now studying them.

Scientists draw the conclusion that the fish is a bottom feeder that doesn't swim in schools and eats a certain type of plant. In reality, the fish typically swims at least 50 meters off the bottom, forms schools, and only eats the plant in question during the El Niño season.
----------------------------
What part of this scenario seems far fetched to you?

 

[Zosimus]

Fossils are unusual, even aberrant, rocks.
But the original organisms were not. Its the organisms that are being studied.
Tom

Speculation.