Evolution My ToE

[tas8831]

Is there any unimpeachable expert with absolutely certain 100% decisions or estimations, or is the nature of science that which cannot be proved, therefore certainty may only be temporary until something else is discovered?

Nope.

Yet creationists routinely declare or imply that the claims of so-and-so are totally true.

Do they not?

 

[tas8831]

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.

Do you think public debates are how scientific issues are decided?

If such debates were about finding truth, then Kent Hovind should have been abandoned by Christians decades ago, the first time he was exposed in public debate as a fraud and liar.

Public debates are about gotchas and zingers and soundbites.

This is not the 1700s. There are far better avenues to discuss scientific issues. Those on the losing end of issues prefer public debates over written exchanges or real scientific inquiry because they only have to impress their target audience or sway those that do not understand the material with their charm, and they can declare victory.

I saw a live Hovind debate about 20 years ago. He was charming, funny, entertaining, a showman. His opponent was an actual biologist, researcher. But was a poor public speaker and did not prepare much (he was a last-minute replacement, as I recall - the person that had originally agreed later found out what kind of person Hovind is and backed out). Hovind was caught in several lies, and many of us in the audience knew that most of his claims were bogus. Yet the audience consensus was that Hovind 'won.'

This is why creationists, religionists, alt-right characters, etc. prefer live, public debates (especially on college campuses, where they can 'bash' excitable yet underinformed students with their years of experience and produce highly edited 'so and so DESTROYS liberals' video clips) over interviewsd or written exchanges.

it is all a farce.

 

[Audie]

Color me intrigued:


Please explain, without paraphrasing or plagiarizing a YEC/OEC website, and support with documentation, how apoptosis is a logical/real barrier between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

And please start by defining microevolution and macroevolution - but be forewarned, macroevolution is not an event, despite a tendency for many creationists to indicate that it is.

Hoc also missed that "logic" and opinion are not the same.
For that matter so much of what really goes on as determined
by research, is profoundly counterintuitive.

 

[Audie]

Color me intrigued:


Please explain, without paraphrasing or plagiarizing a YEC/OEC website, and support with documentation, how apoptosis is a logical/real barrier between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

And please start by defining microevolution and macroevolution - but be forewarned, macroevolution is not an event, despite a tendency for many creationists to indicate that it is.

didnt hoc perhaps inadvertently agree that micro adds up t o macro?

 

[Audie]

OK, let's compare the experts.

One side has people who actually go into the field to discover fossils, who work in labs, and that publish in peer-reviewed journals where critiques are abundant.

The other side has to sign a statement declaring one particular view is mandatory, they only criticize the work of others, they do no lab work, they lie consistently about the work of others, and they tend to publish in popular books for the propaganda value, and *anything* leading to their mandatory conclusion is considered of value.

It's clear to me which side I consider to be the real experts.

Compare? What a marvelous suggestion!

The creos even have a real live paleontologist, Dr K Wise!

"if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, I would
still be yec"

Instead of experts, lets compare juries!

How about we put hoc on trial for his life with a jury
that said, "if all the evidence in the universe says hoc
never done it, we will still say he is guilty"

I bet he'd pretty quick decide he like an honest jury better.

 

[Audie]

Apparently so. In fact, I have noted that some scientists who declare opposition to the theory of evolution are quite unnerved at the prospect of broadcasting their lack of belief in the theory because of censorship. And when I read about peer review, it seems that it is lacking when it comes to actual analysis.

You have "noted" them, have you? Do tell.

And as for your knowledge of peer review, there is a
saying, "Cobbler, stick to your last".
You are out of your pond, on matters of the ivory tower.

Now, to the main point.

Tenure exists for the purpose of protecting professors
with unconventional idea, challenges to the status quo.
Its a great system, if not perfect. For you to claim it is the
opposite is ignorant and ridiculous.

Here is the reason few do come out and "declare opposition" *

They cant give a reason. They dont have a reason.**

IF a person wants to "declare opposition"* to something,
it is well to have a cogent reason.
You are against traffic lights, but cant think of a reason?
You are against the new stadium, but can provide no data
of any sort to show its a bad idea?

Researchers are more than welcome to challenge
any aspect of anything in science they like. That is
a lot of how progress is made. It is now careers are
made Note the excitement if someone manages
to "show that Einstein was wrong"!

But if you just say you dont believe in and
have absolutely no data, no nothing, you are
putting yourself in a very foolish position.

There is no "censorship" such as you claim.
Telling falsehoods is foolish, against the rules
of the "god" you profess to follow, and, does
nothing but weaken any case you wish to present.

* "declaring opposition" is like what you do at a
school board meeting, its not how things are done
in research.

** unless they wish, that is, to declare total intellectual
dishonesty, a poor career move no matter in what field.

 

[metis]

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!

Science is simply not a "philosophy" whereas all opinions may be equal. It's based on objective study and analysis.

Secondly, the Bible is simply not a science book, so treating it as if it were one is really quite nonsensical.

Thirdly, it is really quite hypocritical to say "believe" in regards to science and not put forth the fact that one's religion is based exclusively on belief based on faith. I certainly have no problem with belief and faith, but it's simply not objectively derived.

Fourthly, if I was prone to having a blind "disposition", I still would be attending the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in that denied the basic science of the evolution of life forms. Thus, what I see in your response probably is best summed up with one word: "projection".

Fifth, there's substantial evidence to see movements of some organisms from sea to land and some from land to sea. Thus, let me recommend you get a real science book that covers the evolution of life forms and maybe actually start reading it. You clearly have not done that since you say there's no evidence where there actually is evidence.

Finally, one can use religious beliefs as a source of enlightenment or as a set of blinders to objective reality. I took my blinders off five decades ago as I studied and then taught anthropology for three decades. If you want to wallow in ignorance and delusion on this, that's your choice. Any religion or denomination that insists on ignoring reality must be bogus because the Truth cannot be relative.

 

[tas8831]

Apparently so. In fact, I have noted that some scientists who declare opposition to the theory of evolution are quite unnerved at the prospect of broadcasting their lack of belief in the theory because of censorship.

Declaring opposition is great, but irrelevant if they cannot offer anything of substance.

Saying that they simply 'don't believe it', as many of them do, is a good reason NOT to voice your opposition, because it makes one look like petulant child.

And when I read about peer review, it seems that it is lacking when it comes to actual analysis.

Provide an example please.

You are aware, are you not, that peers that review creationist pubs are required to affirm that they will either never allow anything critical of creationism to see the light of day, or that they will only endorse pro-creation stuff (while these seem to be two sides of the same coin, they differ in their 'logic')?

 

[Audie]

Declaring opposition is great, but irrelevant if they cannot offer anything of substance.

Saying that they simply 'don't believe it', as many of them do, is a good reason NOT to voice your opposition, because it makes one look like petulant child.


Provide an example please.

You are aware, are you not, that peers that review creationist pubs are required to affirm that they will either never allow anything critical of creationism to see the light of day, or that they will only endorse pro-creation stuff (while these seem to be two sides of the same coin, they differ in their 'logic')?

That for sure is where peer review fails and censorship rules.
Projection is strong with the creos.

 

[metis]

There is not one shred of evidence, or even the most basic logic, that microevolution miraculously result in macroevolution.

False.

Ever hear of "forensic science"? There are many people in prison on that basis alone. And anthropologists are often called in to help in this area as this is what we specialize in!

Let's play the game of miracles can happen.

Yes, I believe they can, but what's a "miracle" versus what's "natural" is for another discussion.

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

The book of Hebrews, and the Bible in general, are not science books, so you are demonstrating why you know so little on the matter of science.

Why try to use speciation as a crutch, or steping stone? It never results in anything but another species of it's kind.

But another "species" is of different "kinds"-- that's what "species" deals with!

Disturbing how far persons will go to support a belief in ToE.

It's far more disturbing that you use your religious approach as a set of blinders. I left my old denomination because of this as the Truth simply cannot be relative. Not only does your approach use blinders, it also has led you to spout, or at least parrot, dishonesty. I don't believe that Jesus and God wants us to do that. Do you?

 

[tas8831]

The creationists are far too easily offended while making incredibly offensive statements....

And refute them too often and they put you on ignore.

Deeje... nPeace... Shmogie....

All 'bullies'... All 100% wrong on their evolution claims. All put on ignore those that expose them.

 

[Audie]

nPeace is notoriously dishonest and incompetent when it comes to discussing evolution.
He apparently thinks his soul is more important than his integrity.

Integrity, intellectual and other honesty...

I am tiresome no doubt in reposting this, but it
so perfectly illustrates the problem...though this man
is educated in science, unlike our local heroes.

Dr K Wise, paleontologist

As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.

ZERO intellectual integrity!

But the creationists praise him for being honest
about his faith.
I say its equally praiseworthy if a bank robber
says yeah, I robbed the bank.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Mod Post ***

Please be reminded of rule 1:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

No, it doesn't take any faith. It's just what the evidence indicates. If the evidence were to change, or new evidence were to come to light, then we'd go with that.
Unlike religious beliefs, acceptance of evolutionary claims aren't hinged on receiving eternal life after death or getting into some god's good favour or anything and so they can be amended according to whatever the evidence indicates. We're not stuck having to believe anything that the evidence doesn't indicate, as some who adhere to ancient texts seem to have to do.

 

[dad]

Yes really



No, it's not at all like that, because that can actually be verified.



Belief is not a choice.

People can choose to believe in Jesus actually. Your ability to verify stuff is negligible at best.

He clearly isn't. Unambigously.

I doubt you even realize you are a slave. He is so against people being that way He died to set us free.

What have you done for the oppressed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Your view of evolution was inaccurate then (as it is now). Evolution doesn't posit that apes grew straighter over time and slowly turned into humans.
We are related to other apes, in the same way you are related to your cousins, even though you didn't descend directly from them - rather, you share a common ancestor with your cousins, as we share a common ancestor with the other apes (and humans are in fact, great apes).

 

[dad]

We are related to other apes, in the same way you are related to your cousins, even though you didn't descend directly from them - rather, you share a common ancestor with your cousins, as we share a common ancestor with the other apes (and humans are in fact, great apes).

No. We don't. Mankind shares ancestry with mankind. You try to attach meaning to similarities with other creatures of other kinds that you interpret to mean there is a family relation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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).

There is a ton of evidence verifying that evolution occurs. Evolution is a fact. It is a fact of life that there is change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.
It is the backbone of modern biology. It can and has produced testable predictions.
The theory of evolution is the comprehensive explanation of the processes and mechanisms involved in how evolution occurs. It is also supported by mountains of evidence.

There is a lot more involved in determining that some birds descended from dinosaurs than just declaring that "well they both have feathers so they must be related." (Though feathers are an important feature). Maybe give the people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff some credit, eh?

Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships
The origin of birds
Dinosaurs' Living Descendants | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
Birds and dinosaurs - the debate is over : Nature News

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. We don't. Mankind shares ancestry with mankind. You try to attach meaning to similarities with other creatures of other kinds that you interpret to mean there is a family relation.

Yes we do. Demonstrably so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Apparently so. In fact, I have noted that some scientists who declare opposition to the theory of evolution are quite unnerved at the prospect of broadcasting their lack of belief in the theory because of censorship. And when I read about peer review, it seems that it is lacking when it comes to actual analysis.

Censorship?

If anybody could demonstrably falsify evolution they'd become world famous and win a Nobel Prize. It would be a big huge deal.