Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne

[Guy Threepwood]

There where several fossils found pre-camberian. Why must you try to manipulate science to bring your deity back into the equation?

"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

 

[leibowde84]

Only the effects of it. You don't really see gravity.

It's a force, not matter.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dawkins:

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation.

Of course he goes on to speculate an "explanation" for the observation. And evolutionists of different stripes speculate different 'explanations" for this and many observations that don't fit predictions. None of these retract the actual observation

Similarly Al Gore could correctly state that the Ordovician ice age had 10 x today's CO2 levels, and go on to try to explain this away- but no facts are altered by doing this

Which is the point of the OP, evolution is not observable

 

[Lyndon]

It's a force, not matter.

Actually you're wrong Gravity is made of matter, subatomic particles called gravitons;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/universe-gravity.html

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually you're wrong Gravity is made of matter, subatomic particles called gravitons;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/universe-gravity.html

Gravitons are still a speculative thing.
Ref...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
And since they should be massless, are they really "matter"?
It's all above my pay grade.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So Dawkins shortened his own quote back to simply

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

and yes we still agree 100%

I don't hear (or read anywhere) him retracting the truth of statement, do you? only expressing his regret for acknowledging it.

I'm not doing this again with you. I've provided proper context for you many times and yet you continue with your dishonest quote mining. The chapter is a discussion on the merits of punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism and creationist claims - that of "missing links" in this particular case.

Anyone who has actually read the book (or even just the chapter) knows what you are doing. And it's clear from the YouTube video (and the book) that Dawkins knows what you are doing, and in fact, expected as much. (The very next line in the book is, "Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.")

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not doing this again with you. I've provided proper context for you many times and yet you continue with your dishonest quote mining. The chapter is a discussion on the merits of punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism and creationist claims - that of "missing links" in this particular case.

Anyone who has actually read the book (or even just the chapter) knows what you are doing. And it's clear from the YouTube video (and the book) that Dawkins knows what you are doing, and in fact, expected as much. (The very next line in the book is, "Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.")

I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is here - we agree entirely on the 'appearance of sudden planting'
I understand he and other evolutionists speculate various theories to try to account for this observation- but - once again- the observation remains. No way around it

dishonest quote mining

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'. I don't think you are dishonest, you just have different beliefs

concluding that people with differing beliefs must be 'lying or stupid or wicked'- is the explicit position of Dawkins.

Without being drug down into ad hominem attacks, this is simply not a scientific approach to the subject. It only highlights the fact that evolution an emotional belief for many.

 

[leibowde84]

Actually you're wrong Gravity is made of matter, subatomic particles called gravitons;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/universe-gravity.html

That is still speculation, not a substantiated scientific theory. That may be the case, but it certainly isn't known yet. And, they don't have mass.

 

[outhouse]

He once let me touch his brain.
I giggled like a little girlie!

LOl

I always thought he would be someone known, maybe I'm easily impressed

 

[outhouse]

this is simply not a scientific approach to the subject

Agreed! When are you going to start using a credible approach?

 

[StopS]

What is it with gods and evolution? Why is there this fascination? Why do people even discuss evolution when they are not evolutionary biologists and have no deeper education regarding biology?
Why do people think that non-believers are automatically experts on evolutionary processes?
Why discuss this here, on religiousforums.com? Why not go to a biology forum where you have experts able to actually answer questions?
I don't get it.

 

[Valjean]

Christian fundamentalists in the US have made opposition to the ToE a cornerstone of their politico-religious agenda, StopS.

 

[outhouse]

I don't get it.

Obviously.

What is it with gods and evolution?

Your actually in a debate section called evolution VS creationism.

Why do people even discuss evolution when they are not evolutionary biologists and have no deeper education regarding biology?

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

Why do people think that non-believers are automatically experts on evolutionary processes?

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.

Do you believe creation is 100% man made mythology?

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a force, not matter.

Does it matter?

What is "to observe"? What does it really mean? And how is it done? Nothing we observe is direct. Everything we see, feel, sense, etc are through many layers of medium, inter-agents of many kinds, before "we" see it or feel it. Even worse, regarding quantum level of things, we're limited in what we can test and observe.

 

[dust1n]

What is it with gods and evolution? Why is there this fascination? Why do people even discuss evolution when they are not evolutionary biologists and have no deeper education regarding biology?
Why do people think that non-believers are automatically experts on evolutionary processes?
Why discuss this here, on religiousforums.com? Why not go to a biology forum where you have experts able to actually answer questions?
I don't get it.

Because that would actually involve learning and investigating evolution. If you are wondering, "isn't that what they are trying to do?" the answer is no. No, they aren't.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is still speculation, not a substantiated scientific theory. That may be the case, but it certainly isn't known yet. And, they don't have mass.

Which means we haven't observed them. So have we observed gravity as such yet if we don't even know what it is that we're observing? We're only observing the effects of gravitons or higgs bosons or whatever it might be. My understanding is that gravity is just particles being sluggish or slowed down by the higgs field, i.e. gravity doesn't exist. But I might be misunderstanding this part of the newer quantum theories.

 

[viole]

It's a force, not matter.

It is not a force either. In orbit you feel no force whatsoever (if you are not too big) despite being under the influence of a gravitational field.

The force you feel on earth (your weight, basically) is mainly caused by the floor stopping you from following the natural path toward the center of the earth. Remove the floor and forces disappear.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is here - we agree entirely on the 'appearance of sudden planting'
I understand he and other evolutionists speculate various theories to try to account for this observation- but - once again- the observation remains. No way around it

Read the chapter. Or the entire book.

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat'. I don't think you are dishonest, you just have different beliefs

concluding that people with differing beliefs must be 'lying or stupid or wicked'- is the explicit position of Dawkins.

Without being drug down into ad hominem attacks, this is simply not a scientific approach to the subject. It only highlights the fact that evolution an emotional belief for many.

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.

 

[leibowde84]

Does it matter?

What is "to observe"? What does it really mean? And how is it done? Nothing we observe is direct. Everything we see, feel, sense, etc are through many layers of medium, inter-agents of many kinds, before "we" see it or feel it. Even worse, regarding quantum level of things, we're limited in what we can test and observe.

That's true. I'm with you. Forces like gravity can certainly be observed.

 

[leibowde84]

Which means we haven't observed them. So have we observed gravity as such yet if we don't even know what it is that we're observing? We're only observing the effects of gravitons or higgs bosons or whatever it might be. My understanding is that gravity is just particles being sluggish or slowed down by the higgs field, i.e. gravity doesn't exist. But I might be misunderstanding this part of the newer quantum theories.

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