Audie
Veteran Member
Seriously.
Such a lack of self awareness!
Like going about with mismatched shoes.
Shameful and embarrassing to witness.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Seriously.
Such a lack of self awareness!
Like going about with mismatched shoes.
Shameful and embarrassing to witness.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That paper has been cited a mere 38 times in 12 years.
A paper that purports to offer an explanation (please note that Koonin merely made a proposal premised on his view of some evidence - "I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show..."... "A Biological Big Bang (BBB) model is proposed for the major transitions in life's evolution. According to this model...") for a major set of evolutionary changes that garners a mere 38 citations in 12 years is not a very influential paper, and I note that of those 38 citations, 9 are Koonin's.
Gould and Eldgredge's 1977 paper on punctuated equilibria has been cited 3250 times, or about 77 per year.
Point is, Koonin is better known for his theorizing and 'challenging the status quo' than his hard science work.
In this particular paper, you consider it "evidence" even though it is a mere proposal for a model of larger-scale early evolutionary change, and is not a 'challenge' to evolution at all.
I do wonder, though - why do creationists do this so often, find a paper of a personality that says something they like or agree with or can spin to their favor after which they elevate that person or their claim to the level of unimpeachable expert? It gets tiring.
I actually think it is part of the faith-based mentality of creationists. Since they have faith, anyone who agrees with them *must* be an expert and anyone who disagrees *must* be lying and corrupt. Furthermore, they are accustomed to taking the word of 'experts' as absolute truth: whether the people who wrote their sacred texts or those on the pulpit that interpret those texts.
Ultimately, this means that the skeptical approach, where you question assumptions and test them to be sure they work is antithetical to the whole outlook. The whole notion of 'faith' is directly counter to that of skepticism.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I don't understand - isn't a demonstrated knowledge of a topic one is arguing about relevant?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Sounds about right.
I remember arguing with a creationist some years ago about something - I think it was something Dembski had claimed - and that had been accepted by the scientific community. I questioned this, and after some weeks of my repeated asking him to support that claim (seems like a trend...) he finally provided an example - a blogger with no science background who had accepted Dembski's claim for the sake of argument. I argued that this was irrelevant because a non-scientist blogger is not the scientific community. The creationist would not have it - he declared that this blogger's accepting the creationist claim for the sake of argument PROVED that "the scientific community" had agreed with what Dembski had claimed, and thus what Dembski had claimed was beyond reproach.
It was exasperating.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Science involves study and objectivity, and the JW's don't do either as everything is pushed through a literalistic interpretation of both the Creation and Flood narratives that really don't make much sense when taken that way. Instead, using the allegorical approach is much more logical and realistic in terms of them probably being written to counter the polytheistic Babylonian narratives.
Audie
Veteran Member
Well, the claim of having adequate knowledge of the
topic to be able to read it with comprehension
was auto-refuted.
You mean the route that Isaac Newton took?
Funny how you mentioned that. Because "god did it" was what kept Newton from figuring out how the sun continues to exist. And he was also troubled with motion in space, due to his theory about gravity conflicting with his mindset of "god did it." And just like Newton, it surely did stopped you.
Just my observations.
Audie
Veteran Member
so does this kind of absolutist binary thinking...
First, the utterly phony creoclaim about "keeping status"-
be intellectually dishonest or be expelled, then the
"only other choice", followed by a claim that the entire
scientific community is intellectually dishonest. (parameters of
science dont allow)
All anyone has to do is actually demonstrate ID. Or anything
supernatural of any sort, and them "parameters" will be
take it in. What "parameters" of science-unlike religion-
dont go for is unevidenced bs.
Of course, he has to dismiss ID, to keep his status! I mean, ID is the only other choice to explain how diversity appeared
(unless you wanna go the "aliens seeded it" route)...and the parameters of science don't allow for it.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
To us, it usually is. To them, it is an 'ad hom' to point it out.Well, the claim of having adequate knowledge of the
topic to be able to read it with comprehension
was auto-refuted.
Audie
Veteran Member
It is kind of fun to observe the use of
high falutin' terms by people who dont know
what they mean, whether it is science
or something in Latin.
And miss that in accusing others of an
ad hom where there was none, they
are edging into that territory themselves.
Esp. a "lol, ad hom" dismissal of whatever
was said.
But only kind-of amusing
as it gets tiresome.
They definitely are not ready for flatuin' when
they've not yet grasped things like why
science does not do proof, and have not
bothered to find out what ad hom actually
refers to.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No, there isn't. The Cambrian Explosion is not "one fact contrary to TOE." That has been pointed out to you endless times at this point.
Why are you still repeating it?
It took me a bit to realize it was an accusation and he was not calling his next shot for us.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I prefer the more recent article - WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?.
How is it, that "it is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read", yet persons are free to speculate that "evolutions goes through rapid diversification at times"?
If we were to say, "God does "this or that", persons would say, we have no evidence that God does anything, because we have not seen it.
It seems to me, any guess is good, so long as it supports the belief of ToE - it's science.
What I find alarming about that, is that, the scientists who want to stick to true science, are discredited when they point out the fact that just declaring a hypothesis true, is not science.
What I find alarming are false claims presented as truth. There is no paradigm to proclaim hypotheses to be true by scientists. Any scientist that presented it that way would be quickly corrected in the literature and open debate. Exactly as Behe and Dembski have been for there hypotheses declared as truth.
There is no objective evidence for God or the claims of Genesis. We believe in God based on faith and subjective reasons. You believe in literalism, because you would be shunned if you didnt.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is not one shred of evidence, or even the most basic logic, that suggests that somehow "micro-evolution" miraculously stops before hitting "macro-evolution". This "design" is not only bad science it's also bad theology since there are alternative explanations that might fit, such as "allegory".
Maybe google "speciation" if one is unsure, and even the Wiki article on it is actually quite good, especially since it has links to scientific studies dealing with the evolution of new species under observation.
Maybe google "speciation" if one is unsure, and even the Wiki article on it is actually quite good, especially since it has links to scientific studies dealing with the evolution of new species under observation.
Indispensable for serious and rational discussion of technical material, but entirely unnecessary for rubber stamping.
According to the creationist view, the paint salesman that spent the night at a Holiday Inn is qualified to perform intricate brain surgery. Relax. Don't worry.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Because it sounds do good?
Sure there is! Apoptosis & sexual selection are just two.
And logic? You’re kidding! What logic is there in saying land-based, mammal herbivores would gradually evolve aquatic appendages to fit a watery environment? What environmental pressures would necessitate such a drastic change in lifestyle? It isn’t explained...you’re just supposed “to believe” such illogical nonsense! Why? Because it fits their predisposed view of the ToL better than any other model.
I and many others, although the minority, are just not that easily swayed by philosophies!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your post indicates that you do not even know what logic is. The logic that tells us that a land based animal could evolve to live in the ocean again is the fact that life evolves to fill any niche available. And you are using a strawman argument. That is a losing strategy. There was no drastic change. It only appears "drastic" if one ignores the millions of years between the land based ancestor and today's whales. We can follow the evolution of the whale. It has continually been filled in since the finding of Pakicetus. There were no drastic changes only a slow steady change as the populations evolved to fit their particular niche more efficiently.
When you find yourself only arguing against strawmen you might as well admit that you have lost.