Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ecco]

I'm not against science.

You are not against science only up to the point that it conflicts with your fundamentalist religious beliefs. Once the conflict kicks in, you dismiss and denigrate science. Once the conflict kicks in, you intentionally stop learning.

Example...

I have read that 98-99% of the DNA are repeated in humans from chimpanzees and others, but what's to say evolution did that, even if it seems convenient to say that.

ETA: Just saw another of your posts that proves my contention:

I don't trust their conclusions when they disagree with what the Bible says

 

[ecco]

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit

Give one relevant example.

 

[ecco]

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true.

This is nonsense as has been pointed out to you in multiple threads. You can claim to be ignorant of science, but you can not ignore and be ignorant of the comments that people here have made.

Why would you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over? Who do you think you're impressing? Do you believe that there are dozens of fundamentalist religious lurkers following this thread and silently cheering you on? Do you show these posts to your Mommy and Daddy for their approval? Do you hope God is watching you gallantly defend the Bible? You must have some agenda, but I sure can't figure it out.

 

[ecco]

My main question is: just how recently arrived are humans, particularly in relation to Neanderthals?

Why?

Do you even believe Neanderthals actually existed?

 

[ecco]

What is a shame is that many of my questions are not answered or addressed.

These were not questions. They were nonsensical assertions.

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit. Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
What was true last year may not be true next year.

As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

I don't know it was since the Bible does not say God took the dinosaurs out, but then -- (neither do you know it was whatever some scientists say it was).

It's also obvious that you really do not want to learn.

 

[ecco]

for certain reasons, some of which are that ground shifts, bones are swept away, ridges can form.

That's very true. However, if you were a geologist you would know where and when and how these things happened. You would be able to ascertain how things ended up where they are.

But, you aren't. So you don't. Clearly the Bible didn't teach you these things.

Just because you are ignorant of the way nature works, doesn't mean other people are.

 

[ecco]

Here's a point I found while looking on the internet. From Scholastic.com.
"Why didn't all plants and animals die when the dinosaurs died?
A: Great question!.
..

So here's my question: It was said that it didn't happen very often that there were huge disasters in the earth's history.
Did the dinosaurs worry? Do plants worry? Do lions worry that a huge disaster will wipe them out? (What do you think?)

Scholastic.com is a website geared to young children. Your question is indicative of the type of question a young child would ask.

So here's my question: Are you a young child?






ETA: I doubt even most eight-year-olds would ask if plants worry about forthcoming meteor strikes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Care to provide an example of a question that I haven't answer?

More games.

I and several others have asked you questions or made requests you ignore or evade.

It is well-known and established in this thread that you refuse to support your assertion that intelligent design is the best explanation for the alleged universal fine tuning.

 

[ecco]

And so what I have found is what those such as Michael Behe and others like him say, if you don't agree with the diehard believers in evolution as popular, it's possible one's career in those sciences is doomed due to political reasons.

Wrong again!

Behe's scientific career tanked because it was shown that he, like you, believed the Bible over science.

But, let's not weep for Mr. Behe. He's making a lot more money being a tool of the Discovery Institute than he ever could have made in academia.

Unfortunately, as a result of our flawed tenure system, he is still a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

They do have this disclaimer on their website: Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
My emphases

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
​

RE: the above disclaimer...

Behe’s book sliced and diced again—by members of his own department
To my knowledge, this is unique not only in science, but in any academic department, for here you see an entire department disowning the intellectual oeuvre of one of its members. The disclaimer is there because Michael Behe has tenure and can’t be fired, though he spends his life pushing a discredited form of gussied-up creationism. Rather than lose students who might think the entire department approves of Behe’s Biblically-based ideas, and thus embarrass their whole department, they put up the disclaimer. They tolerate him because they have no choice, but they don’t accept his work.​

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would not expect to see some of the points that are made or the questions being asked, if the level of competence were at all near what has been alleged.

As you indicate, it is not that difficult for a person to learn the basics on their own these days.

Yes, exactly!

It's not like when I was younger and you had to go to the library if you wanted to look up any information. It's all at our fingertips! But the problem with the internet is that anybody can say anything they want, so if you're looking for good information, you just have to make sure you're looking in the right places (e.g. academic sites and such).

Thanks for the compliment. It is reciprocated and I would not downplay the value you contribute as well.

It's well deserved. I really do enjoy reading your posts.

I don't think I contribute all that much in terms of information, but I do appreciate the compliment.

 

[sooda]

That's very true. However, if you were a geologist you would know where and when and how these things happened. You would be able to ascertain how things ended up where they are.

But, you aren't. So you don't. Clearly the Bible didn't teach you these things.

Just because you are ignorant of the way nature works, doesn't mean other people are.

Jesus used parables—short stories with hidden messages—in his teachings....NOT science. Not to be preaching to the choir.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit. Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
What was true last year may not be true next year.

Did you read through it?

"The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says.

Take the extinction of Neanderthals, which occurred in western Europe less than 30,000 years ago. Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise. The more accurate carbon clock should yield better dates for any overlap of humans and Neanderthals, as well as for determining how climate changes influenced the extinction of Neanderthals.

“If you have a better estimate of when the last Neanderthals lived to compare to climate records in Greenland or elsewhere, then you’ll have a better idea of whether the extinction was climate driven or competition with modern humans,” says Paula Reimer, a geochronologist at Queen’s University in Belfast, UK. She will lead efforts to combine the Lake Suigetsu measurements with marine and cave records to come up with a new standard for carbon dating."


So really, what was true last year, is still true this year. What has changed is that the accuracy in dating methodology has improved, and will continue to improve into the future. But notice, it doesn't drastically alter the basic timelines involved. Like, it doesn't suddenly mean that Neanderthals existed a billion years ago or anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

Notice how improving the accuracy in dating methods doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurs though. That was true yesterday, and will still be true tomorrow.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is a shame is that many of my questions are not answered or addressed. And guess what I think? That you don't really know the answers. But, depending on circumstances, I may even keep asking questions and pondering over your assertions.

Questions are good and I see that everyone is doing their best to answer your questions to the best of their abilities. And there are many people here with science backgrounds. No offense, but many of your questions are ill-formed and demonstrate a misunderstanding of basic concepts of evolution. And I see a lot of repetition of questions that have already been addressed.

The answers are well known and available to anyone who has the intellectual curiosity to seek out scientific journals and academic websites. This is why people keep directing you to peruse such sites and learn some basics before continuing the discussion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know it was since the Bible does not say God took the dinosaurs out, but then -- (neither do you know it was whatever some scientists say it was).

You know, there are much better ways of discovering information about the world than looking to the Bible.
I have no idea why anyone would turn to the Bible for answers to scientific questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's a point I found while looking on the internet. From Scholastic.com.
"Why didn't all plants and animals die when the dinosaurs died?
A: Great question! Most animals and plants did die out with dinosaurs, just as they did about five other times when there were huge disasters in the billions of years of earth history. That's not very often, so I wouldn't worry about it happening while we are around. We don't know why any of this happened, so we don't know why it didn't destroy all living things. There was probably a big weather change, from volcanoes or asteroids changing the climate. Some animals and plants that were tough, or little, could survive even these big changes in weather. I'm just glad all plants and animals didn't die out with the dinosaurs, or there would be no us. (Don Lessem)"
So here's my question: It was said that it didn't happen very often that there were huge disasters in the earth's history. And it was said that he wouldn't worry about it happening while we are around. Did the dinosaurs worry? Do plants worry? Do lions worry that a huge disaster will wipe them out? (What do you think?)

What is the relevance of your question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, getting more accurate dating methods makes previous theories (ideas) false, including dating of history and theories about them.

I didn't say it is a bad thing for science. How you misinterpret. I said that according to these findings, "science" keeps changing the lines.

No, it doesn't. Did you not even read the article you yourself provided?

 

[ecco]

Looking at the following article and interview with a geologist who dared disagree with her colleagues, I say, "wow." Seems true to form here.
The Nastiest Feud in Science
The geologist argues that the "mass extinction was caused not by a wrong-place-wrong-time asteroid collision but by a series of colossal volcanic eruptions in a part of western India known as the Deccan Traps—a theory that was first proposed in 1978 and then abandoned by all but a small number of scientists." And this put her at the core of a vicious controversy among other scientists, including slander, threats, and attempts to ruin careers.

What's your point? Keller is still a tenured professor earning a living in the field of her choice.

Do you think she's arguing against the extinction event because she believes the Bible like you do?

The following is from your link... My emphasis

When we discussed the risk that the Yellowstone supervolcano might blow at any time, Keller’s eyes twinkled. “It’s a fun idea,” she said. To her, mass extinctions are not depressing. Rather, they illuminate life’s fundamental questions. “Ask yourself, ‘Where did you come from?’ ‘Why are we here?’ ” Keller told me. “If you extract all the religious bull**** away from it, you have to go to nature. And the only way to find out is really to study the history.”
​

Do you understand that both sides of the argument agree that the extinction event happened about 66 million years ago? Long before your Bible says anything happened.

Do you understand that both sides of the argument agree that dinosaurs actually existed and died out within the same general time frame? Something your Bible ignores even while talking about giant men who supposedly roamed the earth.


Aside from snidely trying to show that all scientists do not always agree on all things, I don't understand the reason for you making this post.

And after I started reading up about these things, And seeing the defenses and accusations here, I realize not only that it is possible, but true.

That what is true? That scientists have egos? That scientists will defend their turf? Again, what is your point?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's hard to evolve after one's extinction.
The ecosystems most creatures depended on; that they were physically specialized to exploit, were suddenly gone. They did not have the technology humans have to enable them to compensate. They died.
It appears they were under stress even before the Chicxulub incident. They became suddenly extinct after the impact. The degree of effect from various stressors remains hotly debated.
Research and evidence continues to accumulate.

I'm thinking you just didn't understand the point here. Yes, you're right, nothing replaced them that had been "before" them, as if they had been evolving into the same things of the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs just went poof. Nothing that preceded them as they evolved, so to say, before them "growing," or continuing to be dinosaurs and clearly nothing after that is a dinosaur, except maybe, a bird? Maybe all their evolved predecessors were wiped out, too, when they were wiped out. Guess so. Or -- maybe some were left somewhere and either stayed the same, or evolved into something else. You know, like a bird.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it doesn't. Did you not even read the article you yourself provided?

Yes, you're the one that denies what's there. Theories change. Are you denying that?