Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Guy Threepwood]

Read the chapter. Or the entire book.



Sorry, you have demonstrated time and time again that you will repeat posting something that you know is not accurate. Pointing that out is not an insult, it is a fact. You are a quote miner. That is a dishonest tactic.
If you don't like being called dishonest, stop acting in a dishonest manner. You don't get to lie and mislead people and then cry "victim" when somebody points it out.

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

:Richard Dawkins

I realize this observation touches a nerve with evolutionists, and that Dawkins regrets writing it. But I honestly don't even understand what exactly you claim is inaccurate about his observation? Do you have a private fossil record he has no access to?

If you can help explain why you disagree with Dawkins and think the statement inaccurate, that might be more productive than name calling.

But if you regret writing something, you can't cry victim when other people don't forget it!

 

[Ouroboros]

If that is the case, I still think that gravity exists. Why wouldn't it?

Of course. Not arguing there.

The point was more about that even if evolution couldn't be observed, we can observe the effects of it and know it is true, the same was as we can see the effects of gravity (whatever it really is at the bottom of things) and know that it exists based on those indirect observations. In other words, inductive reasoning is at the heart of most science, not direct observation. Observation is only the data gathering part, while the inductive reasoning is what brings the theory together from those facts.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course. Not arguing there.

The point was more about that even if evolution couldn't be observed, we can observe the effects of it and know it is true, the same was as we can see the effects of gravity (whatever it really is at the bottom of things) and know that it exists based on those indirect observations. In other words, inductive reasoning is at the heart of most science, not direct observation. Observation is only the data gathering part, while the inductive reasoning is what brings the theory together from those facts.

Agreed in full.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

:Richard Dawkins

I realize this observation touches a nerve with evolutionists, and that Dawkins regrets writing it. But I honestly don't even understand what exactly you claim is inaccurate about his observation? Do you have a private fossil record he has no access to?

If you can help explain why you disagree with Dawkins and think the statement inaccurate, that might be more productive than name calling.

But if you regret writing something, you can't cry victim when other people don't forget it!

Stop acting dishonestly and I won't have to point it out.

I've explained it to you so many times in the past. I mean seriously, you're just going to keep rehashing this over and over as if you've just newly presented it??
And you whine about name calling when I point out the dishonesty of such a tactic?

Just. Unbelievable.

If you want to understand what he's saying at this point, just read the book. I'm done talking to a brick wall.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nobody is name calling here, as already discussed.

I've explained it to you so many times in the past. I mean seriously, you're just going to keep rehashing this over and over as if you've just newly presented it??
And you whine about name calling when I point out the dishonesty of such a tactic?

Just. Unbelievable.

If you want to understand what he's saying at this point, just read the book. I'm done talking to a brick wall.

My hopes were not high..

Debates generally hit brick walls when one side has nothing left but ad hominem attacks.


I don't think it's a particularly inaccurate characterization of many Cambrian major invertebrate groups being 'as though just planted there' in the fossil record, it's not even a very controversial observation

but if it is that particular wording which is the sore point for you, I am happy to put it aside...

And focus on the substantive point, the fact that 'we find many of [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear'

Obviously there are many varying explanations for this, Dawkins had one in the book, Gould another, and creation science another, they are all speculation, they can all be debated intelligently without personal attacks for anyone willing and able.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My hopes were not high..

Debates generally hit brick walls when one side has nothing left but ad hominem attacks.


I don't think it's a particularly inaccurate characterization of many Cambrian major invertebrate groups being 'as though just planted there' in the fossil record, it's not even a very controversial observation

but if it is that particular wording which is the sore point for you, I am happy to put it aside...

And focus on the substantive point, the fact that 'we find many of [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear'

Obviously there are many varying explanations for this, Dawkins had one in the book, Gould another, and creation science another, they are all speculation, they can all be debated intelligently without personal attacks for anyone willing and able.

Stop being dishonest and I won't have to point it out.

Easy peasy.

 

[outhouse]

it's not even a very controversial observation

It is not a credible one. That is why it is not controversial. It is ignored as being apologetic rhetoric.

many Cambrian major invertebrate groups being 'as though just planted there' in the fossil record,

Factually false.


You need to start providing credible sources for this rhetoric.

 

[jonathan180iq]

head shape changes has also been observed in human populations within historic times, but the end product was still human.

At which point in the constant evolution of human head sizes for you differentiate between human and non-human?

How do you propose humans came to be, if not by long periods of biological adaptations dependent on the generations before them that were something other than "human"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

:Richard Dawkins

I realize this observation touches a nerve with evolutionists, and that Dawkins regrets writing it. But I honestly don't even understand what exactly you claim is inaccurate about his observation? Do you have a private fossil record he has no access to?

If you can help explain why you disagree with Dawkins and think the statement inaccurate, that might be more productive than name calling.

But if you regret writing something, you can't cry victim when other people don't forget it!

I seriously cannot believe you are still trying this crap, given how many times you've been called out on it and had it directly explained to you....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is not a credible one. That is why it is not controversial. It is ignored as being apologetic rhetoric.





Factually false.


You need to start providing credible sources for this rhetoric.

Obviously Dawkins is not considered very credible to most people, but I'm talking about his observations, not mine.

'we find many of [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear'

If you read the rest of the chapter you will find that he goes on to speculate on some hypothetical explanations- but he does not retract the unambiguous truth of the statement, nor do most evolutionists

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I seriously cannot believe you are still trying this crap, given how many times you've been called out on it and had it directly explained to you....

I'm aware that it touches a nerve for many, because the statement comes from Dawkins himself, and he openly regrets making it

I have challenged many to back up their claim that the statement is substantively inaccurate, or cite a source where Dawkins himself retracts the substance of it.

Feel free to give it your best shot, anybody

But the more I get ad hominem attacks instead of support for this claim, the more it underscores the truth of his statement.

 

[Sunstone]

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

:Richard Dawkins

Would you please cite the title, chapter, and page that quote appears on so we can look at the context to get an idea of Dawkins' meaning?

 

[columbus]

Obviously Dawkins is not considered very credible to most people, but I'm talking about his observations, not mine.

'we find many of [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear'

If you read the rest of the chapter you will find that he goes on to speculate on some hypothetical explanations- but he does not retract the unambiguous truth of the statement, nor do most evolutionists

Add "in the fossil record" to the end of your bolded sentence and it becomes easy to understand.
The huge majority of living things are unlikely to leave a fossil because they have no hard parts to fossilize. Bacteria, jelly fish, algae, earth worms, etc. When creatures first started leaving fossilized remains they were more "advanced" than the majority of modern creatures.
This is not that hard to understand.
Tom

 

[StopS]

Your actually in a debate section called evolution VS creationism.

Does that make it better?
Does that explain anything?

Why do you discuss religion if your not a priest or rabbi or some kind of educated religious expert?

I discuss what I know and I discuss where there is something to discuss.
Other than that, it's a strawman. I am talking about biology being discussed on a forum on religion.

Most of us have some kind of knowledge of this biology, we don't claim to be experts or even biologist to understand common knowledge that evolution is fact. Here in e the USA this is elementary grade school type of common knowledge

Obviously not, otherwise there would not be such a futile discussion here.
What I criticise and why I hit my forehead is that it is being discussed here at all. Never mind the level.

Do you believe creation is 100% man made mythology?

As long as there is no evidence to the contrary, of course I do. There is no other option.

 

[Aset's Flames]

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
Dawkins concession, not mine


why manipulate science to try to remove God? Why not just go where the evidence leads?

"Nature is the executor of God's laws" :Galileo

Yes, because everything that is capable of producing a fossil is in an advanced state of evolution.

Also many of the fossils do have ancestor states that are ignored becuase it does not suit your theology.

You have come to the conclusion that your religion is correct becuase you want it to be correct and now you are attempting to justify your decision.

"A witty remark proves nothing" - Voltaire

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Would you please cite the title, chapter, and page that quote appears on so we can look at the context to get an idea of Dawkins' meaning?

(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, because everything that is capable of producing a fossil is in an advanced state of evolution.

Okay, you are the first person to at least acknowledge the statement is accurate instead of attacking me for quoting it, so I appreciate that!
And yes, that's pretty much the proffered explanation, that the predecessors were there but didn't leave evidence in the fossil record to observe

which was the original point of the OP, it's not observable. ' the dog ate my homework' does not earn a student an A+ on the mere assumption he did a great job

Also many of the fossils do have ancestor states that are ignored becuase it does not suit your theology.

You have come to the conclusion that your religion is correct becuase you want it to be correct and now you are attempting to justify your decision.

thanks for telling me why I believe what I believe! I know it was intended to be helpful

But actually it was the other way around, I was a staunch atheist and believer in evolution, my first doubts were raised in coding simulations meant to try to demonstrate the process

"A witty remark proves nothing" - Voltaire

Thanks I didn't know I was witty!

 

[Sunstone]

(Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

Thanks! Unfortunately, I don't have the book in my library, can't find the relevant pages online, and so I'll have to check it out the next time I'm in the public library.

 

[outhouse]

'we find many of [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear'

Yes that is correct. Its not up for debate whether you like it or not.

And they did not just appear.

Your quote mining again

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Add "in the fossil record" to the end of your bolded sentence and it becomes easy to understand.
The huge majority of living things are unlikely to leave a fossil because they have no hard parts to fossilize. Bacteria, jelly fish, algae, earth worms, etc. When creatures first started leaving fossilized remains they were more "advanced" than the majority of modern creatures.
This is not that hard to understand.
Tom

Right, so the statement is accurate, do 'SkepticThinker' a favor for me and point that out to him

Again this was the original point of the OP. It's not an observable process as this macro level, this is not hard to understand as you say

'the dog ate my homework' does not equal an A+ by default