Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's not forget that the maybe's being talked about here, are about details.
There's no "maybe" in the generic genetic fact that species share ancestry.

Literally all evidence supports evolution and literaly no evidence points to anything else.
So yea, it's quite ok to treat it as an idea that's as certain as it will get.




And every experiment ever concerning evolution ended up supporting it.

Do you know of an experiment that does not result in observations being made? I cannot make any sense of the claim that science is experiment, but not observation. Is it just me or is that claim confusing to you too?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I did. Ravenously. The older ones I’ve read before. Did you? Why are there “deficits”?

I’m not trying to be misleading at all!

I never said a thing about rejecting evolution entirely. (I never have.) I reject the LUCA aspect of it, though! And any attempt to interpret evolution as occurring beyond the current Family taxa within (probably) every Phylum. Within families....don’t think there’s a problem.

I have read them. I see nothing that puts common ancestry in jeopardy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Literally all evidence supports evolution and literaly no evidence points to anything else.

Yes, microevolution...changes within species. Even within family taxa.

But you overlook the Cambrian Explosion, the abrupt appearance of novel lifeforms. Darwinism evolution does not predict sudden change, only gradual.

If Darwin had known the complexity of the cell and it's DNA, he would have thrown out his theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, microevolution...changes within species. Even within family taxa.

But you overlook the Cambrian Explosion, the abrupt appearance of novel lifeforms. Darwinism evolution does not predict sudden change, only gradual.

If Darwin had known the complexity of the cell and it's DNA, he would have thrown out his theory.

It is abrupt only in relative geological time. It took place over a period of 25 to 30 million years. It is also biased to the fossil preservation of organisms with hard tissues amenable to fossilization.

If cell biology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology had existed in Darwin's time, we would have a volume of supporting evidence several orders of magnitude greater than the vast volume of evidence we have now. Since the evidence from those fields all corroborate the theory now, your statement makes little sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, microevolution...changes within species. Even within family taxa.

But you overlook the Cambrian Explosion, the abrupt appearance of novel lifeforms. Darwinism evolution does not predict sudden change, only gradual.

If Darwin had known the complexity of the cell and it's DNA, he would have thrown out his theory.

There is no one-size-fits-all mode of evolution for all species, populations and environments. The theory does not preclude rapid bursts of adaptation and radiation into novel niches. What it does not support is one generation of a population giving birth to an entirely new and repructively isolated population. Just as no one predicts that all the babies born in France today will only be speaking Spanish in five years.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is abrupt only in relative geological time. It took place over a period of 25 to 30 million years. It is also biased to the fossil preservation of organisms with hard tissues amenable to fossilization.

No, my friend.....there have been 1000's of new species discovered, that apparently spanned those years. But each one appears abruptly in the record. That's why no obvious precursors are found. Even if you feel earlier trilobites were ancestral to the later ones - which they could've been, being in the same family - it still doesn't explain the appearance of the first. Not to mention the other anatomically-different species that are found.

And the fossils discovered in the Cambrian strata, are mostly very well preserved, with soft-body parts clearly defined.

If cell biology, genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology had existed in Darwin's time, we would have a volume of supporting evidence several orders of magnitude greater than the vast volume of evidence we have now. Since the evidence from those fields all corroborate the theory now, your statement makes little sense.

No, they don't "all corroborate" it....I just mentioned one. Darwin was aware of the Cambrian radiation, and noted it presented an obstacle to his theory back then, but he was thinking viable precursors were yet to be discovered. They hadn't then, and they still haven't. Despite much effort.

And the similarity of genes, doesn't stress relationship. Rather, this similarity reveals a common Maker, who used a somewhat uniform "blueprint" to create these organisms.

As if the undirected mechanisms of evolution, working with nature, could have created the marvelous balance observed in Earth's ecosystems & cycles!

'Selfish genes' wouldn't have accomplished that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, my friend.....there have been 1000's of new species discovered, that apparently spanned those years. But each one appears abruptly in the record. That's why no obvious precursors are found. Even if you feel earlier trilobites were ancestral to the later ones - which they could've been, being in the same family - it still doesn't explain the appearance of the first. Not to mention the other anatomically-different species that are found.

And the fossils discovered in the Cambrian strata, are mostly very well preserved, with soft-body parts clearly defined.




No, they don't "all corroborate" it....I just mentioned one. Darwin was aware of the Cambrian radiation, and noted it presented an obstacle to his theory back then, but he was thinking viable precursors were yet to be discovered. They hadn't then, and they still haven't. Despite much effort.

And the similarity of genes, doesn't stress relationship. Rather, this similarity reveals a common Maker, who used a somewhat uniform "blueprint" to create these organisms.

As if the undirected mechanisms of evolution could have created the marvelous balance observed in Earth's ecosystems & cycles!

Unfortunately for you, the gap Darwin recognized as a problem is also a problem for you. It is your God of the gaps. Fossils appear "abruptly" in the geological record, but there is no evidence that supports that this is more than an artifact of fossilization. A fact you are purposefully ignoring to say it "might be", "appears to be" refuting evolution and creating a gap for you. You are drawing an absolute conclusion from, not just an incomplete body of evidence, but an incomplete review of the evidence. The apparent sinfulness did not prevent Darwin from formulating the theory 160 years ago and it does not collapse the theory now. It does leave questions to answer and evidence to seek. As more evidence is found, that is where support, rejection of modification of the theory will be found. Alas, it is also where your gap will shrink even further. Yours, not mine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, my friend.....there have been 1000's of new species discovered, that apparently spanned those years. But each one appears abruptly in the record. That's why no obvious precursors are found. Even if you feel earlier trilobites were ancestral to the later ones - which they could've been, being in the same family - it still doesn't explain the appearance of the first. Not to mention the other anatomically-different species that are found.

And the fossils discovered in the Cambrian strata, are mostly very well preserved, with soft-body parts clearly defined.




No, they don't "all corroborate" it....I just mentioned one. Darwin was aware of the Cambrian radiation, and noted it presented an obstacle to his theory back then, but he was thinking viable precursors were yet to be discovered. They hadn't then, and they still haven't. Despite much effort.

And the similarity of genes, doesn't stress relationship. Rather, this similarity reveals a common Maker, who used a somewhat uniform "blueprint" to create these organisms.

As if the undirected mechanisms of evolution, working with nature, could have created the marvelous balance observed in Earth's ecosystems & cycles!

'Selfish genes' wouldn't have accomplished that.

Evolution is not undirected, it just does not have evidence of goals and the actions of intelligent direction.

Natural selection acting on those genes is the only visible guidance leading to the diversity and consequent complexity of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, my friend.....there have been 1000's of new species discovered, that apparently spanned those years. But each one appears abruptly in the record. That's why no obvious precursors are found. Even if you feel earlier trilobites were ancestral to the later ones - which they could've been, being in the same family - it still doesn't explain the appearance of the first. Not to mention the other anatomically-different species that are found.

And the fossils discovered in the Cambrian strata, are mostly very well preserved, with soft-body parts clearly defined.




No, they don't "all corroborate" it....I just mentioned one. Darwin was aware of the Cambrian radiation, and noted it presented an obstacle to his theory back then, but he was thinking viable precursors were yet to be discovered. They hadn't then, and they still haven't. Despite much effort.

And the similarity of genes, doesn't stress relationship. Rather, this similarity reveals a common Maker, who used a somewhat uniform "blueprint" to create these organisms.

As if the undirected mechanisms of evolution, working with nature, could have created the marvelous balance observed in Earth's ecosystems & cycles!

'Selfish genes' wouldn't have accomplished that.

We know of many examples and mountains of evidence that demonstrate similarity existing in related things. What evidence are you using to support your blueprint speculation? It is an article of doctrine and not of fact. It is doctrine in the face of facts.

 

[cladking]

Let's not forget that the maybe's being talked about here, are about details.
There's no "maybe" in the generic genetic fact that species share ancestry.

Literally all evidence supports evolution and literaly no evidence points to anything else.
So yea, it's quite ok to treat it as an idea that's as certain as it will get.




And every experiment ever concerning evolution ended up supporting it.

Everything changes and species do as well. This simple fact does not support interpretation of every observation, or "experiment" related to "evolution". "Evolution" is a galaxy of interpretation based on the assumptions that the fit survive and we don't need to understand the role of consciousness in even one case of survival or lack thereof.

No amount of expertise allows you to extrapolate theory from observation. No amount of expertise or even experiment can assure that there is no circular reasoning.

 

[cladking]

It matters, because people like you keep publically making fallacious, misleading and false claims about science in order to destroy it and replace it with your personal religious views.

From my perspective it seems you're defending your beliefs against non-believers just like Deeje is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you know of an experiment that does not result in observations being made? I cannot make any sense of the claim that science is experiment, but not observation. Is it just me or is that claim confusing to you too?

Yeah, I noticed that too.

I tend to read over such things these days. It's one of those thing I was thinking of when I said that creationists tend to have this unique ability of being able to make 20 mistakes in a 10-word sentence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, microevolution...changes within species. Even within family taxa.

No.

Macro-evolution is evolution on the level of speciation and above. So if you agree speciation happens, then you agree macro-evolution happens. Micro-evolution refers to changes within a single species

The only difference between both is thus the amount of accumulation that happens.
They are not different processes. Which I'm sure has been explained to you countless times before as well.

It's yet another one of those strawmen that you refuse to correct, because it doesn't suit your argument to correct it.

But you overlook the Cambrian Explosion

I do not.

the abrupt appearance of novel lifeforms

First of all, not "novel" in the sense you mean it. Every single species that evolved during the cambrian explosion, was a modified version of its ancestors. There are not "novel" in the sense that they didn't have any precursers.

Secondly, if you wish to call the evolution of species over the course of 40 tot 80 million years "abrupt", go right ahead. You're somewhat correc that it is "abrupt", but only when seen from the perspective of geological time, in which 60 million years is a relatively small amount of time.

But not exactly "abrupt" in the sense of overnight...

Darwinism evolution does not predict sudden change, only gradual.

All species that have ever evolved have done so in gradual manner, which is to say: through the gradual accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

This is true for all species that evolved in all ages.

Sounds like you are once again arguing a strawman.

If Darwin had known the complexity of the cell and it's DNA, he would have thrown out his theory.

Darwin predicted the existance of a mechanism by which traits are inherited by off spring AND which is able to pass on modified versions of those traits. That happens to be exactly what DNA is.

So no, it wouldn't have caused him to think evolution is wrong. Instead, the discovery of DNA and the workings thereof, provided exactly that which the theory was missing for all those decades AND that which theory predicted that must exist: a system of inheritance of (potentially modified) traits.

EXACTLY what DNA is.

So no, DNA does not falsify evolution. Instead, it triumphally validates it in ways that Darwin himself never could have imagined.


Funny how creationists succeed in getting everything completely backwards.

And off course @Deeje liked your post as well. He too is, off course, a fan of arguing massive strawman and being willfully ignorant. And yes, I get to say you're willfully ignorant because I know for a FACT that every single strawman mentioned here by you (and @Deeje ) has been mentioned by you both in the past AND torn apart and correct by countless other members - myself included.

Why do you two so insist on getting it wrong and arguing strawman?
Do you really think you are going to score points with such behaviour? Really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everything changes and species do as well. This simple fact does not support interpretation of every observation, or "experiment" related to "evolution". "Evolution" is a galaxy of interpretation based on the assumptions that the fit survive and we don't need to understand the role of consciousness in even one case of survival or lack thereof.

That the "the fit survive" is a demonstrable fact, not just an assumption.
Every part of the process of evolution factually happens. If you think there are factors that remain unaccounted for and which should be included, feel free to design an experiment to demonstrate how those factors manifest and play a role.

Do you have any such evidence?
If not, why would I, or anyone else, have to care about your claims about "consciousness"?

No amount of expertise allows you to extrapolate theory from observation.

Errr....
This makes very little sense. Ignoring the strange wording of that claim... since theories are literally meant to explain observations / data, it seems kind of obvious that one would have to start from the observations / data to go about building a theory.

You take a set of observations / data and work out the relations between them and then come up with a hypothesis to explain these relations. You then design experiments, leading to further observations, to test the hypothesis. Either it accurately predicts the result or it doesn't.

Evolution does that better then just about any other theory.

OFF COURSE theories are "extrapolations" of observations.
What else could they be, since explaining what we observe is literally their purpose???

This is not just the case for evolution. It is the case for ALL theories. If you have no observations to explain, then you have nothing to work out a theory for......

No amount of expertise or even experiment can assure that there is no circular reasoning.

This makes zero sense.

There's nothing circular about this process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From my perspective it seems you're defending your beliefs against non-believers just like Deeje is.

The difference being that his "beliefs" are backed by evidence while @Deeje 's beliefs are backed by...well... nothing. Hence why she requires "faith".

Also hence why she insists on dragging science down to her level of make-belief, so that she can argue that they are just "different opinions", as if they are equally valid.

They are not, off course.

One is based on evidence and has huge explanatory power.
The other is just superstition (which requires the outright denial of the evidence).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No.

Macro-evolution is evolution on the level of speciation and above. So if you agree speciation happens, then you agree macro-evolution happens. Micro-evolution refers to changes within a single species

The only difference between both is thus the amount of accumulation that happens.
They are not different processes. Which I'm sure has been explained to you countless times before as well.

It's yet another one of those strawmen that you refuse to correct, because it doesn't suit your argument to correct it.



I do not.



First of all, not "novel" in the sense you mean it. Every single species that evolved during the cambrian explosion, was a modified version of its ancestors. There are not "novel" in the sense that they didn't have any precursers.

Secondly, if you wish to call the evolution of species over the course of 40 tot 80 million years "abrupt", go right ahead. You're somewhat correc that it is "abrupt", but only when seen from the perspective of geological time, in which 60 million years is a relatively small amount of time.

But not exactly "abrupt" in the sense of overnight...



All species that have ever evolved have done so in gradual manner, which is to say: through the gradual accumulation of micro-changes over generations.

This is true for all species that evolved in all ages.

Sounds like you are once again arguing a strawman.



Darwin predicted the existance of a mechanism by which traits are inherited by off spring AND which is able to pass on modified versions of those traits. That happens to be exactly what DNA is.

So no, it wouldn't have caused him to think evolution is wrong. Instead, the discovery of DNA and the workings thereof, provided exactly that which the theory was missing for all those decades AND that which theory predicted that must exist: a system of inheritance of (potentially modified) traits.

EXACTLY what DNA is.

So no, DNA does not falsify evolution. Instead, it triumphally validates it in ways that Darwin himself never could have imagined.


Funny how creationists succeed in getting everything completely backwards.

And off course @Deeje liked your post as well. He too is, off course, a fan of arguing massive strawman and being willfully ignorant. And yes, I get to say you're willfully ignorant because I know for a FACT that every single strawman mentioned here by you (and @Deeje ) has been mentioned by you both in the past AND torn apart and correct by countless other members - myself included.

Why do you two so insist on getting it wrong and arguing strawman?
Do you really think you are going to score points with such behaviour? Really?

Getting it wrong? Arguing strawman? Simply your opinion.
No one has ever demonstrated any mechanisms of evolution that would build de Novo features. Not even the bacterial flagellum; Dr. Behe has asked for those evolutionary pathways numerous times from his critics, no one ever providing such. One attempt, the T3SS, was debunked. It's obvious design, by a designer.

And the Cambrian radiation was not 60 my long...rather, 10 to 25 my, according to latest estimates.
Also, I was not including family-level branching as microevolution. No strawman there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I noticed that too.

I tend to read over such things these days. It's one of those thing I was thinking of when I said that creationists tend to have this unique ability of being able to make 20 mistakes in a 10-word sentence.

The U.S. creationists are following our president and taking it a step further. When those 20 mistakes are identified and explained, they double down and claim they are not mistakes in the face of facts to the contrary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The U.S. creationists are following our president and taking it a step further. When those 20 mistakes are identified and explained, they double down and claim they are not mistakes in the face of facts to the contrary.

Yeah... they aren't mistakes. Instead, they are "alternative facts".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Getting it wrong? Arguing strawman? Simply your opinion.

No. Demonstrable fact, as any proper textbook on biology will show you.
You argue strawmen. And not just any strawmen... strawmen that have been exposed as such to you a thousand times over.

I don't even remember how many times in this thread alone I had to point out the law of monophy, which explains how species never evolve into "completely different species". How every new species is always just a modified version of its ancestral species.

Even after pointing it out 3 times, in the very next post what do I see? You guys asking for "evidence" of a "kind evolving into a different kind", implying it would "prove evolution" - while in reality it would actually falsify it, as I explained as per the law of monophy.

This is sheer willfull ignorance and a serious case of ostrich defenses.

It seems that there is no limit to how many times it must be repeated before it will sink in. You peops simply don't care. You settled on your strawman version of the theory and it seems as if NOTHING is going to stand in your way to argue that strawman.

That's your choice of course, but realise that the only thing you will accomplish with that is... well.... nothing. You'll just look ignorant and you will accomplish nothing of any value.

You'll only make sure that you (and your target audience) will continue to get it wrong.
Which you likely don't care about either. All you care about is upholding your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

No one has ever demonstrated any mechanisms of evolution that would build de Novo features

That's just false.
An easy and famous example is the e-coli experiment.
None of the original 12 (genetically isolated) populations was able to metabolise citrate.
After a few thousand generations, 1 of the 12 populations evolved the trait to do so. The mutations themselves that made it possible even were identified. It opened up de novo metabolic pathwas which allowed it to grow on citrate. That's a de novo feature.

You'll deny it, off course, but there you go. Another example of e. coli is nylonese. Nylon is a fabric that DID NOT EXIST before we invented it. Today, there are e. coli that feed on it. Same story. Mutations that resulted in de novo metabolic pathways which allowed that population to grow on those materials.

Not even the bacterial flagellum; Dr. Behe has asked for those evolutionary pathways numerous times from his critics, no one ever providing such

Another lie.

Behe has been debunked, refuted, ridiculed, torn apart, ... a thousand times over. You might have missed that, being burried in their propaganda and ONLY in their propaganda.

Perhaps you should open up a real textbook one of these days, instead religious propaganda.

One attempt, the T3SS, was debunked. It's obvious design, by a designer.

It seems 99.7% of biologists all over the world have missed "the obvious".

And the Cambrian radiation was not 60 my long...rather, 10 to 25 my, according to latest estimates.

Depends how you look at it.
When only considering the evolution of the main generic phyla, your numbers are correct.
25 million years is still a REALLY long time though. More then enough time for evolutionary processes to do what they do: modify species over time and accumulate those changes through inheritance of (modified) genetic material.

Also, I was not including family-level branching as microevolution. No strawman there.

Your entire idea of evolution, is one huge strawman.
You don't get to redefine scientific terminology.

Micro-evolution: accumulation of micro-changes within a species not resulting in speciation.
Macro-evolution: accumulation of micro-changes within a species which DOES result in speciation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And after all that....you failed to answer the question about where the lines intersect and where the bottom line leads to or from?

I just told you.
Don't you know how family trees work?
Intersections and the trunk represent the common ancestor of the branches the flow from it.

You didn’t answer because you cannot answer without speculations, suggestion and assertions about what happened in the beginning.

There's no speculation. This is how family trees work.

If science cannot ‘prove’ anything that it ‘assumes’ with data that it has ‘interpreted’ to favor it’s own ideas, then why teach it as if it can’t be called into question?

Nobody teaches science as if it can't be questioned. That's just a lie that fundamentalists told you.
Off course, if you are going to question science, you actually have to first understand the science you are going to question AND you're going to have to bring actual evidence based justification for your questioning.

Having said that... science being questioned is not only not allowed... it is actually motivated. Questioning things, is how progress is made.

If you have a “belief” that you cannot prove, the same as I do...

1. scientific theories are never "proven", only supported - as I'm sure (again) many people have told you already
2. the idea that the only alternative to being "proven" is that is believed on "faith" is absolutely absurd.

Science is based on evidence.
Your beliefs are based on faith.

They are not on equal footing at all.

.what makes your ‘Bible’, written by scientists, more accurate than my Bible, written by the one who created all of it?

Science doesn't use "bibles". Science is based on evidence.
Your bible is not.

There are no “maybe’s” with the Creator....

Because it's faith based dogma asserted as fact without evidence.

he simply tells us what he did and gave us the intellectual capacity and curiosity to learn about what he made in all of it’s fascinating detail.....

Your bible was written by humans (that didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun).

there is a lifetime subject for study that could last forever. I personally look forward to gaining that knowledge....but it will not be in this world.

It surely won't be in this world if you continue to insist on getting it wrong and arguing strawmen.
It likely won't be in "the next world" either, since there doesn't seem to be such a thing.

Science, I believe, is the study of Creation.....

Nobody care what you "believe".

science’s problem with the existence of the Creator, is their problem

Science has no problem with faith-based assertions. Science simply ignores such assertions as they are utterly merritless and useless.

Science only cares about evidence and explanatory power. Neither of which you have. Both of which evolution has.

It fascinates me that this subject is so hotly and passionately debated.....

By YOU. Not by scientists.

like you are defending a religion.....

No. It's you that is promoting a religion and in the process, you misrepresent the actual science.
We are just correcting your mistakes.

why does it matter to you if people don’t believe you?

It doesn't matter to me what you believe.
But I do think it is important to not misrepresent the science.

And may I remind you that it was YOU who created this thread?
Why does it matter to YOU, might be a better question...

Why can some who claim to believe in a Creator so quickly dismiss him and his word, because science indicates that he wasn’t really needed?

Maybe you should ask them that question, as I'm not one of them.

He then becomes less than God.....a mere originator of a process that can no more be proven than if he created all things the way the Bible says he did.

What's more rational:

- believing in a god that can't be demonstrated and which flies in the face of evidence (= creationism)
or
- believing in a god can't be demonstrated but which nevertheless is still compatible with the evidence? (= theistic evolution)

I say that the latter is more rational.