Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[McBell]

We believe you can see the effects of the hand of a designer.

Now all you have to do is show, using actual science, how you came to such a conclusion.

And no, quoting the Bible is not science.
And no, quoting someone who has quoted the Bible is not science.
and no, logical fallacies (appeal to authority, appeal to divinity, appeal to popularity, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, just to name a few) are not science.


Now since creationism has been around for quite some time and never once has been presented by using science...

But hey, you just might be the first one in hundreds (or is it thousands) of years to actually do so.

 

[Valjean]

By 'observed' I don't refer exclusively to direct optical perception, truthseeker

 

[Gabethewiking]

I morphed two of your post together here to avoid alot of posts.

I don't have a problem with it as such, I just wonder about really complex systems and how long they must have taken to evolve and how they must also work with other systems at the same time, and I also wonder about the information that's in DNA. How did it get there?
And I admit, I know very little about Germ Theory and adaption and so forth compared to you...

That is alot of Questions regarding alot of different topics. I think you need to stick to one topic, but most importantly, You need to understand the Basic Foundation of Evolution and this demands that you read up about it. Many here are willing to help you, or atleast give you a good start but that means you will need to have a open mind accepting scientific facts and knowledge and look at the Evidence so you can see for yourself and not deny things because your religion says so.

Would you be prepared to do that?

Neither was the big bang but that is a field of scientific study? Why, because you can observe it's effects amongst other things, and this is what creationists claim. We believe you can see the effects of the hand of a designer.

We can observe the radiation of the Big Bang, as a small example the Theory of BigBang is based on. You also seem to think that "observe" means literally seeing it with your eyes (I observed a person getting hit by a car) and not understanding the wide concept of Observe.

If you are willing to learn about the Fact of our Evolution, once again, everyone here would love to Help you out, but you need to make the decision if you are willing to have a look at Evidence, have it Explained to you if you do not understand, and realize that you can not Ignore facts because your Religious Faith says so.

Are you willing to do this and Learn About Evolution?

 

[Atruthseeker]

Now all you have to do is show, using actual science, how you came to such a conclusion.

And no, quoting the Bible is not science.
And no, quoting someone who has quoted the Bible is not science.
and no, logical fallacies (appeal to authority, appeal to divinity, appeal to popularity, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, just to name a few) are not science.


Now since creationism has been around for quite some time and never once has been presented by using science...

But hey, you just might be the first one in hundreds (or is it thousands) of years to actually do so.

Morning! Now, before I attempt it, what exactly am I allowed to say? What to you is using science? Cos I was reading a book on evolution and the language and expressions used etc pretty much the same as in a book promoting ID, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'using science'...How would you like me to phrase my answer? I feel like my hands are tied a bit.

 

[Atruthseeker]

... Many here are willing to help you, or atleast give you a good start but that means you will need to have a open mind accepting scientific facts and knowledge and look at the Evidence so you can see for yourself and not deny things because your religion says so.

Would you be prepared to do that?

Yes, I would. However, please allow me this. If someone were to show you how something in nature were to indicate, even just a possiblity of a creator, would you prepared to take that into account and disregard you scientific bias/leaning?

We can observe the radiation of the Big Bang, as a small example the Theory of BigBang is based on. You also seem to think that "observe" means literally seeing it with your eyes (I observed a person getting hit by a car) and not understanding the wide concept of Observe.

I know the bible means little or nothing to you, but I understand that observing does not mean seeing something directly but being able to see it effects. For example, you cannot see gravity, but you can observe it's effects. The same goes for wind, or radio waves or X rays. Like wise, there is a scripture that puts our view of observation well. Romans 1:20 'From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.' So one can observe his qualities or effects of his actions in nature.Incidentaly, the scripture continues to say something interesting:
'They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.While claiming to be wise, they became fools. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues that looked like mortal humans, birds, animals, and snakes.'

 

[Valjean]

Of course the ID book sounded scientific, truthseeker. ID was specifically developed to mimic scientific discourse. It is designed to fool the scientifically naive. But look at what ID says: It does not propose a mechanism either for biogenesis or subsequent biological change. It's mostly an effort to refute either the fact of change or the theories explaining the mechanisms of change. It then goes on to jump to the egregiously illogical conclusion that if science cannot presently explain the initial origin of life, or if the mechanisms of change the ToE proposes are untrue, then there is only one reasonable alternative -- Goddidit.

Creationism is a very, very simple concept. It distills down to a single assertion of agency. All the rest -- the ID -- is hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, stagecraft; designed to make it look more sophisticated and impressive than it really is.
They're selling snake-oil, truthseeker.


What, in Nature, are you thinking of when you speak of 'indications of a creator'?

The Romans scripture you quote strikes me as non sequitur. Like ID, it asks us to accept a wildly unlikely and completely baseless "explanation" (agent) for certain impressive phenomena we have no other explanation for. It discounts any and all possible alternative explanations and goes straight to the most unlikely -- but psychologically impressive -- one.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Seyorni[/URL];1867155]Of course the ID book sounded scientific, truthseeker. ID was specifically developed to mimic scientific discourse.

That is not a fair thing to say now is it? I've been asked to use science in my explanation/evidence for ID. If I did that, would you jump on me saying I'm mimicking science to mislead those who are scientifically naive? If they didn't speak to you on your own terms, you'd have a go at them too. So how else should they do it? That is a baseless claim. :no:

Creationism is a very, very simple concept. It distills down to a single assertion of agency.

Doesn't ToE do the same, saying that all life started from a few simple agents/life forms?

Seyorni[/URL];1867155]
All the rest -- the ID -- is hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, stagecraft; designed to make it look more sophisticated and impressive than it really is.
They're selling snake-oil, truthseeker.

That is not evidence, just statements, for if I claimed the same thing of evolutionists and you wouldn't stand for it. If you have already decided that ID is just smoke and mirrors and have relegated it to the sidelines, then what point is there in arguing if you have already defined the rules of how life must have arisen?

Also, what makes you sure that what you read in your text books hasn't been influenced and is strictly neutral? Don't you think there may be scientists out there, many of whom are agnostic or atheistic, who won't let their prior commitment to evolution influence their writings/reports and findings so as to, in a sense, distort the facts. This is not unheard of. (Didn't Darwin's javascript:void(0);mate do that with those embryo drawings?)

Here is an example of a contradictory scientific message:
A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

However, National Geographic had this to say: (I actually found this on another sitejavascript:void(0); too and it's author uses a good illustration)
"Notice National Geographic’s remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin’s theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened?"
Which is it then, are there really so many fossils in the record or not? Seems like you guys can't even agree amongst yourselves...

What, in Nature, are you thinking of when you speak of 'indications of a creator'?

Where do I start? It's almost pointless for me to even go there as for every thing I list, you will offer an opposite explanation and we will be banging heads... However, what I can tell you is this for now. What I don't believe is that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a decades of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. I can't see how all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over a long, long time. Not yet, anyway...

Seyorni[/URL];1867155]The Romans scripture you quote strikes me as non sequitur. Like ID, it asks us to accept a wildly unlikely and completely baseless "explanation" (agent) for certain impressive phenomena we have no other explanation for. It discounts any and all possible alternative explanations and goes straight to the most unlikely -- but psychologically impressive -- one.

Like I said, the same can be said for ToE as from the get go, you have decided that the evolution of life must be the only truth.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I actually wanted to comment on some things you said to Seyorni, but it is none of my business. I am in a hurry anyway.

Yes, I would. However, please allow me this. If someone were to show you how something in nature were to indicate, even just a possiblity of a creator, would you prepared to take that into account and disregard you scientific bias/leaning?

I do not have any biased leanings. I accept the facts of the real world, if this would containe the Christian God (of all the millions of gods) so be it, why would I disregard it? That is completely against my character and most others here, we accept facts (reality).

I know the bible means little or nothing to you,

As much as the Qu'ran or any other none-Christian "holy book" to you

For example, you cannot see gravity, but you can observe it's effects. The same goes for wind, or radio waves or X rays.

We can observe wind, radio waves and x-rays in more ways then "effected by them", because of todays tools you can, of you wish, literally "see" these things. But you are correct, excellent, so we have no problems here.

Romans 1:20 'From the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly observed in what he made. As a result, people have no excuse.' So one can observe his qualities or effects of his actions in nature.Incidentaly, the scripture continues to say something interesting:
'They knew God but did not praise and thank him for being God. Instead, their thoughts were pointless, and their misguided minds were plunged into darkness.While claiming to be wise, they became fools. They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for statues that looked like mortal humans, birds, animals, and snakes.'

That is a very nice English translation of the Hebrew work. Have you ever wondered what is mistranslated and what is completely changed? Just asking.

 

[McBell]

That is not a fair thing to say now is it?

The truth is the truth.
You not liking what it says about ID is your problem.

I've been asked to use science in my explanation/evidence for ID. If I did that, would you jump on me saying I'm mimicking science to mislead those who are scientifically naive?

If you try to pull the same bull **** misdirection that is atypical from ID proponents, yes.
If you actually use real science, no.

If they didn't speak to you on your own terms, you'd have a go at them too. So how else should they do it? That is a baseless claim. :no:

Seems to me that your biggest task is to actually learn what science really is and stop moving forward with the silly notions that the likes of Kent Hovind promote.

Doesn't ToE do the same, saying that all life started from a few simple agents/life forms?

No.
ToE makes no claims as to the beginning of life.
That would be Abiogenesis.

That is not evidence, just statements, for if I claimed the same thing of evolutionists and you wouldn't stand for it. If you have already decided that ID is just smoke and mirrors and have relegated it to the sidelines, then what point is there in arguing if you have already defined the rules of how life must have arisen?

Who has defined the rules of how life has arisen?
Seems to me that you are the only one making any such claims in this thread.
Of course, this thread is about Evolution and the ToE, not the beginning of life.

You seem unable or unwilling to understand the difference.

Also, what makes you sure that what you read in your text books hasn't been influenced and is strictly neutral? Don't you think there may be scientists out there, many of whom are agnostic or atheistic, who won't let their prior commitment to evolution influence their writings/reports and findings so as to, in a sense, distort the facts. This is not unheard of. (Didn't Darwin's mate do that with those embryo drawings?)

Because the scientific method encourages mistakes to be found and corrected.
Can you honestly say the same for your religion?

Here is an example of a contradictory scientific message:
A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

However, National Geographic had this to say: (I actually found this on another site too and it's author uses a good illustration)
"Notice National Geographic’s remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin’s theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened?"
Which is it then, are there really so many fossils in the record or not? Seems like you guys can't even agree amongst yourselves...

Source please.
And no, just saying "national geographic" is not citing the source.
Why?
Because there are numerous writers and contributors that have their stuff presented by National Geographic.

Where do I start? It's almost pointless for me to even go there as for every thing I list, you will offer an opposite explanation and we will be banging heads... However, what I can tell you is this for now. What I don't believe is that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a decades of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. I can't see how all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over a long, long time. Not yet, anyway...

Here is a huge part of your problem.
You refuse to look at and or accept the facts and truths for what they are.

You are much more interested in protecting your beliefs than you are in the truth.

Like I said, the same can be said for ToE as from the get go, you have decided that the evolution of life must be the only truth.

The only truth of what?

Please remember that evolution has NOTHING to do with the beginning of life.
So if you are going to make the blatantly false claim that I have decided that evolution is the only truth as to how life began, I will have no choice but to call you a bold faced liar.
Why?
BECAUSE EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEGINNING OF LIFE.


I mean do I really need to use really huge fonts before you understand?

 

[Valjean]

That is not a fair thing to say now is it? I've been asked to use science in my explanation/evidence for ID. If I did that, would you jump on me saying I'm mimicking science to mislead those who are scientifically naive? If they didn't speak to you on your own terms, you'd have a go at them too. So how else should they do it? That is a baseless claim. :no:

No, truthseeker, I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising the authors of ID propaganda.

Doesn't ToE do the same, saying that all life started from a few simple agents/life forms?

No, it doesn't. The ToE does support several simple, basic principles, but the theory itself is a complex weave of a great many facts and studies. The ToE describes a number of mechanisms by which life adapts to changing environments and gives voluminous support for its claims.

That is not evidence, just statements, for if I claimed the same thing of evolutionists and you wouldn't stand for it. If you have already decided that ID is just smoke and mirrors and have relegated it to the sidelines, then what point is there in arguing if you have already defined the rules of how life must have arisen?

This is absurd. I thought you were familiar with ID. We have the documents -- ID's genesis as propaganda is clear.
What mechanism does ID propose -- none! What evidence does it cite for it's conclusion that Goddidit? -- None! All it does is try to discredit the ToE and propose that the only other "explanation" must be ....Goddidit! Goddidit isn't even an explanation, it's just an assertion of agency.

Also, what makes you sure that what you read in your text books hasn't been influenced and is strictly neutral? Don't you think there may be scientists out there, many of whom are agnostic or atheistic, who won't let their prior commitment to evolution influence their writings/reports and findings so as to, in a sense, distort the facts. This is not unheard of. (Didn't Darwin's mate do that with those embryo drawings?)

That's the beauty of science. Scientists are commited to truth and are constantly testing their hypotheses and theories. They immediatly drop ideas that don't pan out and modify their theories accordingly. Scientists have no faith and no commitment to any particular conclusion. All is open to question and explanations follow the evidence.
Creationists start with an axiomatic, unfalsifiable conclusion and look for evidence to support it. No research or testing is done and contradictory evidence is ignored or 'explained away'. It's all a web of propaganda.

Here is an example of a contradictory scientific message:
A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

What's contradictory there? Change is a continuum, no-one expects to find distinct 'transitions'. Where does red change to purple change to violet change to blue on a color spectrum? It's all arbitrary. Draw the lines where you will, it doesn't in any way discredit the fact that change is occurring!

However, National Geographic had this to say: (I actually found this on another site too and it's author uses a good illustration)
"Notice National Geographic’s remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin’s theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened?"
Which is it then, are there really so many fossils in the record or not? Seems like you guys can't even agree amongst yourselves...

Ridiculous. Everyone agrees on the basic principles of evolution, and "following the story" depends on how many frames-per-second the action's filmed at.
We have abundant evidence that life changed over time, there is no controversy whatsoever here. Some steps in the sequence may be missing, but the direction of change is clear. You overestimate the consequence of what is missing. We may lack specific details here and there, but the big picture is not in dispute.

Where do I start? It's almost pointless for me to even go there as for every thing I list, you will offer an opposite explanation and we will be banging heads... However, what I can tell you is this for now. What I don't believe is that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a decades of research, the study of billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. I can't see how all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over a long, long time. Not yet, anyway...

Truthseeker, you are unaware of a great deal of evidence, of many transitional forms. Different "kinds" exist, and that's a fact. You have no explanation for this, science does, but you deny the existence of supporting evidence, and 'abrupt appearance' is not something science doesn't have an explanation for.
Face it. You believe in, and are seriously proposing magic as a reasonable explanation for the diversity of life we see today.

Like I said, the same can be said for ToE as from the get go, you have decided that the evolution of life must be the only truth.

You are being willfully ignorant, truthseeker, and are imputing your own logical errors to me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Truthseeker,

There's no contradiction in those two quotes you posted. The take-home message from both is that despite the fact that the currently-discovered fossil record constitutes a very small fraction of what existed, we still have an amazing abundance of "transitional fossils".

IOW, even the "1 frame out of 1,000" that we have is exactly what we would expect to see under evolutionary common descent.

 

[Atruthseeker]

Truthseeker,

There's no contradiction in those two quotes you posted. The take-home message from both is that despite the fact that the currently-discovered fossil record constitutes a very small fraction of what existed, we still have an amazing abundance of "transitional fossils".

IOW, even the "1 frame out of 1,000" that we have is exactly what we would expect to see under evolutionary common descent.

Poo.

 

[johnhanks]

However, National Geographic had this to say: (I actually found this on another site too and it's author uses a good illustration)
"Notice National Geographic’s remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin’s theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing!

This is pure sophistry. It rests on the naive assumption that a complete (100%) data set to support evolution would have to consist of the fossilised remains of every organism that ever existed, and that any lesser percentage is proportionally inadequate. This is simply nonsense: the fossils we do have constitute a perfectly robust data set, and support the theory of evolution in every respect.

 

[Autodidact]

So what you are saying is that Evolution is a closed book not open to critisism or questioning. Cos, it's funny, even Dawkins himself said no one know how life got started, and that includes you, so really, you can not claim a monopoly on how life started. Sorry.

So basically what you're saying is that you don't even know what topic the ToE is about? And you expect to have an intelligent discussion about it?

 

[Autodidact]

Is it? I believe that we can evolve, in that there can be changes within a species, but not that we can change into an entirely different and new species.

So your position is that new species never evolve? We have the same (or fewer) number of species now as when life first emerged?

 

[Sunstone]

Here is an example of a contradictory scientific message:
A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

However, National Geographic had this to say: (I actually found this on another site too and it's author uses a good illustration)
"Notice National Geographic’s remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin’s theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened?"
Which is it then, are there really so many fossils in the record or not? Seems like you guys can't even agree amongst yourselves...


Where do I start?

Indeed, where does one start with an error as great as that one?

 

[Willamena]

Morning! Now, before I attempt it, what exactly am I allowed to say?

Only things that Mestemia will accept.

 

[Autodidact]

Are you saying we should take yours!? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY TO CREATIONISTS!!!!!!!!!

No, I'm suggesting that science is a good way to learn about the world. Do you disagree?

 

[Autodidact]

So, you are saying you have no problem with the idea that an intelligent designer got the ball rolling? You only want to discuss how life evolved? If so, tell me, before life 'evolved' to what it is now, HOW DID IT START? Let's talk abiogenins! Surely that is the at the root of the theory. YOU DO NOT KNOW! So how can you say that intelligent design has nothing to do with it? HOW!?

If you want to talk about abiogenesis, start a thread. It has nothing to do with this subject.

 

[Autodidact]

How does something know it needs something it has never had before? How does something say to itself: 'You know, I can't fly right now, but I tell you what, it wouldn't half come in handy if I did, so I will set off in a gradual path to what will enable me to fly. I know it'll be hit and miss along the way, and chances are I'll fail to get to where I'd like to get, but if this is something that will benefit me, then eventually, given enough time and the right conditions etc, I will get there!'

That is a just a stupid illustration, I know, but really, all the complexities in life would require such huge steps, it's virtually impossible to have happened by random mutation. Tell me, how did life evolve from non-life to life and we'll talk.

You literally have no idea what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is, do you? All I want to know is, are you interested in learning? Because I don't have time to waste defending a theory that no one espouses, least of all me. Let me know if you want to discuss the actual ToE, and I'll explain it to you. Otherwise please refrain from discussing it, or you just look like an idiot.