Evolution My ToE

[Hockeycowboy]

The whole notion of 'faith' is directly counter to that of skepticism.

Really? You consider yourself a skeptic, right?
You don’t think it takes faith on your part to believe that land-based mammals “returned” to the ocean? That those myriad mutations required for such a transition, occurred, despite what little anatomical evidence there really is?

You have your experts, too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? You consider yourself a skeptic, right?
You don’t think it takes faith on your part to believe that land-based mammals “returned” to the ocean? That those myriad mutations required for such a transition, occurred, despite what little anatomical evidence there really is?

You have your experts, too.

The problem is that you are not a skeptic. To be a skeptic one must follow the evidence and you do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence. There is no faith needed to understand whale evolution. All one needs to do is to follow the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Really? You consider yourself a skeptic, right?
You don’t think it takes faith on your part to believe that land-based mammals “returned” to the ocean? That those myriad mutations required for such a transition, occurred, despite what little anatomical evidence there really is?

You have your experts, too.

On the contrary, the faith that I require is simply the 'faith' in reasoning and observation. The *evidence* shows that land animals returned to the ocean. In fact, we can see animals *today* that are in the middle of exactly that process: penguins, seals, walruses, otters, etc. It is hardly a remarkable thing to say that some animals that were land based can become less so over generations and 'return to the sea', like whales and dolphins.

The point is that you have to look at *all* the evidence available. Many times, animals alive today can give information about what sorts of things could have existed in the past. Add to that the fossil evidence and you get near certainty about the simple conclusions of 'land based animals returned to the sea'. Life is much more variable and malleable than many people realize without consideration.

Of course, to be a skeptic also requires being willing to look at contrary evidence and to realize that new evidence can make some conclusions less likely than they were before. This is an ongoing process of attempting to understand the universe.

But one of the things that seldom happens is that old ideas that were overthrown based on evidence are resurrected in their original form. And *that* is why creationism isn't going anywhere scientifically: it was realized almost 200 years ago to be a system that didn't fit the evidence. This was realized by people who *wanted* to believe it was valid, but who eventually admitted the evidence simply disagreed.

 

[nPeace]

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.

There is not one shred of evidence, or even the most basic logic, that microevolution miraculously result in macroevolution.
That was easy. Let's play the game of miracles can happen.
There is not one shred of evidence that a creator on a larger scale, didn't precede a creator, on a smaller scale. Hebrews 3:4

I m not referring to speciation. Just read the article I linked on Evolution 101, and see what the difference is. Or look here. Why try to use speciation as a crutch, or steping stone? It never results in anything but another species of it's kind.
Disturbing how far persons will go to support a belief in ToE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is not one shred of evidence, or even the most basic logic, that microevolution miraculously result in macroevolution.
That was easy. Let's play the game of miracles can happen.
There is not one shred of evidence that a creator on a larger scale, didn't precede a creator, on a smaller scale. Hebrews 3:4

I m not referring to speciation. Just read the article I linked on Evolution 101, and see what the difference is. Or look here. Why try to use speciation as a crutch, or steping stone? It never results in anything but another species of it's kind.
Disturbing how far persons will go to support a belief in ToE.

It is so easy to deny reality. But that only demonstrates that you at best do not know what you are talking about. Either whether we are talking about evidence or logic. By the way, it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of miraculous change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. So I do not see why you have a problem with it. And by the way, speciation is macroevolution. You do not get to redefine terms for your own benefit. The person that invented those terms defined them.

This opens up several possible topics of discussion. There is almost endless evidence for "macroevolution". Even beyond the species level. How about discussing the concept of evidence first?

 

[Audie]

There is not one shred of evidence, or even the most basic logic, that microevolution miraculously result in macroevolution.
That was easy. Let's play the game of miracles can happen.
There is not one shred of evidence that a creator on a larger scale, didn't precede a creator, on a smaller scale. Hebrews 3:4

I m not referring to speciation. Just read the article I linked on Evolution 101, and see what the difference is. Or look here. Why try to use speciation as a crutch, or steping stone? It never results in anything but another species of it's kind.
Disturbing how far persons will go to support a belief in ToE.

Such childish natterings

 

[Bear Wild]

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.

Oh another meaningless Jehovah's witness website post using the TOP TOP Jehovah's biblical scientists. Lets see how they do.
1. "The Bible account of creation also leads us to expect that new types of creatures would appear in the fossil record suddenly and fully formed." Guess what that is not what the fossil record shows - minus one for Jehovah witnesses.

2. “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Very interesting research about early horizontal transmission of genetic material and the incorporation of genetic material as mitochondria and chloroplasts. All evolutionary ideas and support - plus one for evolution. Hockeycowboy have us the article demonstrating this support for evolution. Thanks Hockeycowboy.

3. “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” The sequence is not perfect although new evidence is always appearing but guess what it still opposes expected in ID or genesis - Oh well another -1 for the Jehovah witnesses.

4. "In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time." Incorrect. Some organisms show stability while other show significant transitions Sorry witness. Bad misrepresentation of the evidence. Another -1 for Jehovah witness.

5. "Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.” This explosion is predicted with new genetic changes as in theANTP-class homeobox genes, which encode transcription factors involved in body patterning, increased in number in the bilaterian stem lineage. That +1 for evolution.

6. "The first life on earth was not “simple.” First life on earth was mono cellular compared to humans of today. This is clearly positive for evolution +1

7. "The odds against even the components of a cell arising by chance are astronomical." Not about evolution - this is abiogenesis.

8. "DNA, the “computer program,” or code, that runs the cell, is incredibly complex and gives evidence of a genius that far surpasses any program or information storage system produced by humans. " genetics is not a computer program. Incorrect assumption based on humancentric ignorance -1 for Jehovah's witness ( should be more negative for such an arrogant position)

9. "Genetic research shows that life did not originate from a single common ancestor. In addition, major groups of animals appear suddenly in the fossil record." Again hockeycowboy gave us the article which shows how this is supportive of evolution. +1 for evolution.

"Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?" The answer Jehovahs witness -4 and + 4 for evolution.
So who is correct
EVOLUTION!

 

[Bear Wild]

It is so easy to deny reality. But that only demonstrates that you at best do not know what you are talking about. Either whether we are talking about evidence or logic. By the way, it is a strawman to claim that there is some sort of change from microevolution to macroevolution. And macroevolution has been observed in real time. So I do not see why you have a problem with it. And by the way, speciation is macroevolution. You do not get to redefine terms for your own benefit. The person that invented those terms defined them.

This opens up several possible topics of discussion. There is almost endless evidence for "macroevolution". Even beyond the species level. How about discussing the concept of evidence first?

The division between macro and miro evolution is only semantics. It is the SAME process! It is only our artificial divisions to describe large verses mall changes. The evidence remains that evolution is occurring. This desperate use of these terms are the floundering efforts of the creationists and ID (No real difference in these terms) to find a flaw while ignoring their unsupported flaw of having no evidence to support them. Thanks for all of the evidence you continue to produce.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The division between macro and miro evolution is only semantics. It is the SAME process! It is only our artificial divisions to describe large verses mall changes. The evidence remains that evolution is occurring. This desperate use of these terms are the floundering efforts of the creationists and ID (No real difference in these terms) to find a flaw while ignoring their unsupported flaw of having no evidence to support them. Thanks for all of the evidence you continue to produce.

Yes, and I see that I typed too fast. I meant to have the term "miraculous change" in that post.

fixed my post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Creationist really hate whales. You nailed him on his straw man argument. A change in environment doesn't have to be dramatic or drastic. A change that can be exploited is all th e change that is needed. A drastic change might be adverse. A drastic change could exceed mutation and natural selection resulting in extinction.

His understanding of science is pretty bad, but he gets from his church, so I don't expect it to be useful.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am actually fairly familiar with Christian history thank you and has no influence on what I believe now.

OK, but again -- what do you think a Christian is?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I did read it. Koonin still reported the facts (which shouldn't be overlooked).....kudos to him!

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.

Funny how thinking "God did it", never kept Newton or Boyle from trying to figure out how things work. It surely doesn't stop me.

Yes, finding out how things work makes life interesting. I, as a musician, can appreciate guitar makers, violin makers, sound waves and so forth. And still looking forward to the future.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you are not an animal which all biological evidence shows we are, then what are you?
Current gorillas and lions evolved to their current genetic presentation the same way humans did so your assumption is incorrect.

When I was in school, before I studied (and believed) the Bible, I would say humans descended from apes. Apes growing straighter as time went on. Until, of course, they became humans. Somehow. But now that I know and moreover, believe what the Bible says, I believe that God created humans different from the animals. Again, while many do not believe it, humans really do think differently from animals. Humans write music, poetry, and history, among other unique qualities that are different from the animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

This may be one your more ironic claims. Belief is all you have.

 

[YoursTrue]

On the contrary, the faith that I require is simply the 'faith' in reasoning and observation. The *evidence* shows that land animals returned to the ocean. In fact, we can see animals *today* that are in the middle of exactly that process: penguins, seals, walruses, otters, etc. It is hardly a remarkable thing to say that some animals that were land based can become less so over generations and 'return to the sea', like whales and dolphins.

The point is that you have to look at *all* the evidence available. Many times, animals alive today can give information about what sorts of things could have existed in the past. Add to that the fossil evidence and you get near certainty about the simple conclusions of 'land based animals returned to the sea'. Life is much more variable and malleable than many people realize without consideration.

Of course, to be a skeptic also requires being willing to look at contrary evidence and to realize that new evidence can make some conclusions less likely than they were before. This is an ongoing process of attempting to understand the universe.

But one of the things that seldom happens is that old ideas that were overthrown based on evidence are resurrected in their original form. And *that* is why creationism isn't going anywhere scientifically: it was realized almost 200 years ago to be a system that didn't fit the evidence. This was realized by people who *wanted* to believe it was valid, but who eventually admitted the evidence simply disagreed.

The problem with reasoning and observation is that there is no verifiable evidence showing that (1) life began with a unicell that kept emerging or multiplying, and (2) life forms merged, emerged, evolved literally and definitely and distinctly from one type of animal to another. It's just so evident now in my mind, and nothing that a supporter of evolution shows anything else as far as the growth aspect of evolution. One might say that because a dinosaur fossil showed feathers, it means that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but frankly, I no longer 'see' it that way. What I see is that it is possible that some extinct form of dinosaur had feathers, but it does not have to mean that dinosaurs evolved into birds. If I was told in school before I believed what the Bible says that dinosaurs became birds, I would have accepted that. But now -- I don't.
Not sure what you mean that belief in creation was erroneous 200 years ago; not sure what you believe "creationism" is, by the way. It's the same way I asked someone here what is a Christian who claimed to have been a Christian, or believed it in the past, so far no answer. So what you think someone who believes in creation rather than evolution really believes may not be true of all those who do believe in creation rather than evolution in its simplest terms (no Designer).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

On the contrary, the faith that I require is simply the 'faith' in reasoning and observation. The *evidence* shows that land animals returned to the ocean. In fact, we can see animals *today* that are in the middle of exactly that process: penguins, seals, walruses, otters, etc. It is hardly a remarkable thing to say that some animals that were land based can become less so over generations and 'return to the sea', like whales and dolphins.

The point is that you have to look at *all* the evidence available. Many times, animals alive today can give information about what sorts of things could have existed in the past. Add to that the fossil evidence and you get near certainty about the simple conclusions of 'land based animals returned to the sea'. Life is much more variable and malleable than many people realize without consideration.

Of course, to be a skeptic also requires being willing to look at contrary evidence and to realize that new evidence can make some conclusions less likely than they were before. This is an ongoing process of attempting to understand the universe.

But one of the things that seldom happens is that old ideas that were overthrown based on evidence are resurrected in their original form. And *that* is why creationism isn't going anywhere scientifically: it was realized almost 200 years ago to be a system that didn't fit the evidence. This was realized by people who *wanted* to believe it was valid, but who eventually admitted the evidence simply disagreed.

I’m sorry, but population genetics doesn’t jibe with the relatively short timeline for such massive changes. It’s way more than just novel appendages. But you know that...
This video discusses it. It’s a long video... the relevant part starts @ about 36:00.

Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m sorry, but population genetics doesn’t jibe with the relatively short timeline for such massive changes. It’s way more than just novel appendages. But you know that...
This video discusses it. It’s a long video... the relevant part starts @ about 36:00.

Take care.

How about some peer reviewed papers. The anti-evolution side has a disgraced scientist and a non-scientist. What authority do they have in this debate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is that you are not a skeptic. To be a skeptic one must follow the evidence and you do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence. There is no faith needed to understand whale evolution. All one needs to do is to follow the evidence.

Creationist do not understand science or the logic used to accept conclusions. At this level, there shouldn't be people denying evidence that has been gathered over the last 200 years, but here we are still hearing denials.

They ignore prior work supporting the theory, the evidence and the reasoning leading to acceptance of theory. Since there views are drawn without any evidence and little methodology other abject belief in what they are told, they assume everyone concluded using that same mechanism.

It is mind boggling to watch them in action on here. Unsupported claims. Trivial, useless, or misrepresented items cited as evidence in favor of their claims. Drive by declarations without explanation. Logical fallacies used wantonly and lavishly. Baseless and immaterial accusations, insults and conspiracy theories all offered as evidence in support of their claims.

They view scientific conclusions on the same level as opinions about a favorite ice cream flavor or declarations of faith. It is little wonder they are so confused.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Creationist really hate whales. You nailed him on his straw man argument. A change in environment doesn't have to be dramatic or drastic. A change that can be exploited is all th e change that is needed. A drastic change might be adverse. A drastic change could exceed mutation and natural selection resulting in extinction.

His understanding of science is pretty bad, but he gets from his church, so I don't expect it to be useful.

You must be responding to someone I ignore...

I thought we might have some common ground to reason on, but it seems you’re not willing to consider any points I make, either theological or scientific.

I didn’t mean to come across as arrogant when I was discussing theology...I was just stating facts, about the reputation of many religions that profess Christianity. And their several conflicting interpretations of how Jesus’ sacrifice accomplishes God’s purpose for mankind.

I think most don’t even know what Jehovah God’s purpose for mankind is... “Thy will be done on Earth” is -shwoop- right over their pulpit.

And I was referring to religions, not necessarily their members.


I think any further reparté right now would be fruitless.

Truly, I wish you the best. Take care.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How about some peer reviewed papers. The anti-evolution side has a disgraced scientist and a non-scientist. What authority do they have in this debate?

I don't guess he is speaking to me any more. It is a strange situation. He treated me like an idiot and when it was recognized, he is the one offended. Now all I get are judgement icons as passive/aggressive disapproval.

Ah well, the arrogant are often the most thin-skinned and never more so than those that have no apparent reason for their arrogance.