Evolution has never been observed

[waitasec]

they will never accept any experiment you do as proof.

by faith no less...

 

[atanu]

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here.

There is a difference between how spirituality and materialism work. The latter school, while depending on the given ungraspable intelligence, argues from that intelligent base that at some time in past there was no intelligence; there was only matter that became life-intelligence of its own. The fallacy, to me, here is that one throws the baby with the bath water. More rigorously it can be shown that all these theories are mental representations that are superimposed on the consciousness that gives rise to the mental speculations, thereby veiling up the 'thought free-memory free' base mind layer that is the basis of existence -- the present, wherein the past and the future script plays on.

From a scientific point of view this cannot simply be approached, IMO. It needs the reverse technique known as involution -- remove the layers of thoughts and discover the primeval state that underlies all thoughts. That underlying thought free state is always existent as peace in all beings.

Which of the above two paths, one wishes to follow depends on one's need. While living the life, science can ease things (I am from the science fraternity myself). But if one requires to erase the turbulence hidden in memory (that creates all the pains) and consciously get a handle on the memories, one needs to follow the spiritual path, IMO.

Many accomplished scientists agree. Many budding scientists do not. They link up unrelated findings of science to support materialism, which in the first place is a representation based on our power of life-inteligence.

 

[Acim]

Hey everyone, some theist said a Creationist strawman argument is legitimate. No, I'm serious, he said that. Let's all go argue with him. C'mon! It's right here. Who's with me?


(Is how I view the sudden increase in posts on this thread. 2 days ago, birds were chirping in the background when I was making everyday, normal points. But conclude that Creationists may have won a teeny tiny part of the larger war, and lo and behold, we gotta stomp that). LOL.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

2 days ago, birds were chirping in the background when I was making everyday, normal points. But conclude that Creationists may have won a teeny tiny part of the larger war, and lo and behold, we gotta stomp that.

People took issue with your "conclusion" on valid grounds. Is that still allowed?

-Nato

 

[waitasec]

who says there's a war?

no one argues with nature....

 

[Acim]

Um, no, because we do observe "evolution" at its most basic level, the change in frequency of alleles in a population. We have observed speciation in bacterial forms. As I already stated, only if the creationist denies that these observations constitute "evolution" does it mean we don't observe evolution.

Thing is "we" barely observe this. Kinda gotta go out of our way into domain of extraordinary observations to observe (ahem) natural evolution.

And this always ends up making me think of where does science (how we practice it) fit within evolution. Is it natural what we are doing. Within paradigm that says physical existence is reality, I say yes, all that humans make, do, produce is natural. Perhaps this is seen as side point, but to me it isn't really since observing speciation in a lab, where everything has to me exactly controlled, accurately agreed upon going in and out, is leaving a bit to be desired in terms of "natural evolution" and "observations" available to one and all.

The Straw Man stands.

With huge holes in his (or her) appearance. Either that or is now half straw and half bedrock.

 

[Acim]

All ideas about how the universe works are wrong.

I observe this statement to be wrong.

 

[Acim]

evolution is no loner a concept...it is supported by fact. it is fact, in fact.

Naw, it's still a concept. And it is simply agreed upon, not objective in true sense of that word.

But keep trying!

Btw, I like the slip and use of "loner" in the above statement.

 

[Acim]

The "Folk definition" is deeply flawed... There are lots of "species" that the folk definition proclaims that are either comprised of several different biological species (such as "the Shearwater" is actually at least seven species ) as well as several different "Folk species" that actually a single biological species (such as the Brown/Grizzly/Atlas/Kodiak/and so on Bear).

wa:do

I am not saying folk definition is accurate in all possible things we can study and observe, but in what I had referenced so far, and what I imagine to be vast majority of what is studied, it strikes me (right now) as fairly comprehensive and generally accurate. Since we are more or less conceding that no model (folk conception being a model) is entirely accurate, I'll concede for clarity sake that folk definition will not cover all the extraordinary observations we may make with regards to studying evolution of things in our physical existence.

 

[Acim]

A
Evolution cannot possible be proved to a creationist.

The problem is the following:

Most creationists accept that what they call micro-evolution, that is gradual change within a species takes place.
But as creationists correctly point out, variation within a species does not constitute creation of new species.

To me, that is not the problem. The problem I observe consistently in course of debate is in vein of failure to have empathy with Creationist perspective, coupled with assertions like, "only an irrational idiot would not agree on the evidence that we all know to be fact. Seriously loser, epic fail. Now go tell your sky daddy that you need him to give you an imaginary cookie."

Yeah, that's the problem as I see it. Cause in reality, we are having a discussion (debate) with ourselves on this topic and not "us" vs. "them." I realize that "them" may have done things historically / recently that seemed to drive huge wedge between "us," but when it comes to points being made in this discussion in attempt to raise awareness, increase understanding(s), the reality is we are having conversation with ourselves and playing to an audience we hope will listen to seeds being planted.

On both sides.

So when does something constitute a new species?
The definition that I usually use is that if two pouplation groups cannot mate and produce fertile ofspring, then they are two different species.

Folk definition! (LOL)

But I am sure there are other people using other definitions ...

Oh.

If we for arguments sake use the definition I just gave, then the problem is this:
Even if you do an experiment where you follow a population group which undergoes 'micro-evolition' to the point where it produced two distinct population groups which cannot interbreed, I doubt a creationist would accept this as proof.
They would just say "but that is just variation within a kind" :foot:

Agreed, though seed of that sort would be pretty good planting within the debate. But in course of debate, where defenses are high, I doubt fundy Creationist is going to concede whole argument that Creationism stands on because of this one (rather significant) episode.

Am I right you think? Or is there a kind of evidence a creationist would accept?

I think there is a kind they (or we) would accept, but it then would become questionable if the material evolutionists would readily accept it. I sincerely believe 'truth' in somewhere in middle, and kind of truth that does have evidence to support it, just not the kind that relies only on (non objective) physical mumbo-jumbo.

Kinda gotta understand the one who we are in debate with more than what is up for debate. At this stage of the game, seems like both sides are essentially projecting a whole lot of false BS on other side and saying things that amount to stereotyping and extreme prejudice.

 

[waitasec]

Naw, it's still a concept. And it is simply agreed upon, not objective in true sense of that word.

oh i see, you don't understand evolution...

 

[PolyHedral]

I observe this statement to be wrong.

Where's your proof? And this time I'm asking for proof, not evidence, since you are correct, not merely approximately correct.

 

[painted wolf]

I am not saying folk definition is accurate in all possible things we can study and observe, but in what I had referenced so far, and what I imagine to be vast majority of what is studied, it strikes me (right now) as fairly comprehensive and generally accurate. Since we are more or less conceding that no model (folk conception being a model) is entirely accurate, I'll concede for clarity sake that folk definition will not cover all the extraordinary observations we may make with regards to studying evolution of things in our physical existence.

It's fine for everyday use by most people... but if you want to know about subjects in depth you need more precise language able to convey very specific information. And folk knowledge can be wrong in very important and even dangerous ways.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at here.

Are you suggesting that what evolutionists see as evolution is design in stages?
That life was designed to turn out a certain way, but was created different from the end result and with a plan as to how to get there?

Only barely what you are touching upon, but no not what I was getting at.

It is possible that the fossils were put where they are by God for som reason that we mere mortals cannot understand, but I would not say that this is plausible.

Hmmm, I wasn't meaning 'put there by some God,' but more like 'are just there' and not needing to be intelligently explained. I wholeheartedly understand that desire, and except for convictions of (historical) religion, there isn't the need to establish something that is going backwards (really).

In fact it is possible that the universe was created only moments ago with you, me, our memories, the fossils, ect. just as you see it. I have no proof that it wasn't. But I do not consider this a plausible explanation.

Yeah, I'm familiar with this too, and can be read into what I was saying for sure, but is not exactly where I was coming from. Close, but not quite. I would say more to this presentation of possibility, but it would probably come off as 'all of what I believe actually occurred.' So perhaps I'll get back to this.

It is also possible that the geologists (I assume they are the ones responsible for the theory that puts the fossils in cronological order based on which layer they are found in) got it wrong and the fossil record is all wrong, but I don't consider this plausible either. If someone wants to claim this, they will have to come up with explanations for why the geologists are wrong.

No, I'm coming more from assumption that geologists are right. But am addressing motivation to 'get it right' from understanding of 'we are that which is natural.' As if nature intended to study itself at some point, which is accurately exactly what we are involved in. The fact that we intend this, is why I use the word intention. We are that which is natural. Nature is intending this.

The fossil record is what I would call circumstantial evidence.
You have to deal with it, you can't just ignore it.

Debatable and much closer to what I was originally getting at.

 

[Acim]

Where's your proof? And this time I'm asking for proof, not evidence, since you are correct, not merely approximately correct.

All ideas about how the universe works are wrong.

I observe this statement to be wrong.

The underlined part would be extent of my proof.

Tautology baby, tautology.

 

[Acim]

It's fine for everyday use by most people... but if you want to know about subjects in depth you need more precise language able to convey very specific information. And folk knowledge can be wrong in very important and even dangerous ways.

wa:do

Such as?

 

[PolyHedral]

The underlined part would be extent of my proof.

Tautology baby, tautology.

"All ideas about how the universe works are wrong." isn't a statement about the universe, though. It's a statement about statements about the universe.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Kinda gotta understand the one who we are in debate with more than what is up for debate. At this stage of the game, seems like both sides are essentially projecting a whole lot of false BS on other side and saying things that amount to stereotyping and extreme prejudice.

Well, it's no better to characterize the "debate" as wholly rhetorical, where both sides are operating with preconceived notions blah blah blah.

We've all read creationist literature, and read the rantings of creationists who post here. There's always a deep misunderstanding (perhaps even an intentional one) of the realities of empirical evidential inquiry. There's a lack of informed engagement with what Darwin's theory is and isn't. And if creationists can't be bothered to learn the truth about what they're arguing against, then it's not really a debate at all.

-Nato

 

[Acim]

"All ideas about how the universe works are wrong." isn't a statement about the universe, though. It's a statement about statements about the universe.

My statement was a statement about a statement about statements about the universe, and is as provable / logical as your statement about statements about the universe. Even my statement about the logical equality between my statement about a statement about statements about the universe and your statement about statements about the universe is equally provable.

 

[Acim]

We've all read creationist literature, and read the rantings of creationists who post here. There's always a deep misunderstanding (perhaps even an intentional one) of the realities of empirical evidential inquiry. There's a lack of informed engagement with what Darwin's theory is and isn't. And if creationists can't be bothered to learn the truth about what they're arguing against, then it's not really a debate at all.

And yet with that rather obvious irrational prejudice at work, Darwinians still find reason to enter into the debate.

Here I'm doing so in this thread, using literature cited as 'the way, the truth and the life' of evolutionary theory and yet the reality of epistemological inquiry seems wide open to debate / understanding from those who are self convinced that they, alone, are working with facts, not consensual agreement on (mere) ideas and theories.

Oops, did I just expose my prejudice. Excuse me for being honest.

Can we all go back and get into character where my right equals your wrong and you don't get such and such while I get everything you are saying, and more?