Evolution My ToE

[Dan From Smithville]

Either you don't understand what a claim is, or it's just customary for you to spout them... or both.
So let us consider them by number. This should make it easy. We did this at elementary school...or rather, I did. I don't know if you got there, so I can only speak for myself.

Please read the following carefully, and answer each.
1) What specific false claim did I make, of which you are referring to?

Here, you said this...
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?

2a) Please explain what you mean by the claim 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. (in other words, please elaborate, as it is just a bland statement - uselrss in its current form) What scientific paper can you provide, to demonstrate how macroevolution takes place?

2b) What are the almost endless evidence for "macroevolution" (quotation marks noted)?

2c) How many times would you like to discuss the concept of evidence? If you believe it has not been discussed, what is your idea of discussing the concept of evidence?

You made this claim... Ah good. So you finally acknowledge that you are an ape.
3) When and where did I acknowledge that I am an ape? (You don't have to answer this question, as it is a foolish question, in response to a stupid claim).



4) What is a Gish Gallop, if you know? Please explain how the post is Gish Gallop.

5) Which of my links in the post, take you to a Creationist website? (Please specify the link)

6) What didn't I understand from the paper, and what proof do you have of that?

This a very funny post. The majority of your posts are Gish Gallops. They are intended overwhelm, overload and confuse your opponents. You add to the confusion with a profuse abuse of formatting. You green ink the opposition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah! In moderation.

H(some "reasoning" on the Scriptures, about that topic: Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine. It makes no sense to then say, we shouldn't enjoy some from time to time!
But the Bible does condemn drunkenness.
If you put it together....enjoy, to a point.
OK, enough of that!)

There for a while, I was getting into Killian's Red, I really like the Amber beers.
I've got a Yuengling Amber in my fridge now.

You like the stouts? You mentioned British beer...reminded me of Guinness.

I like some of the Guinness brews. Even a few that require a spoon. I got interested in panics years ago ago and will occasionally ignore the cost to enjoy some of those. Lindemans produces a number of lambics using a variety of fruit in secondary fermentation that make them excellent dessert beverages to accompany a meal. These are probably the most well-known in the US. The lambics have fascinating history and production that is almost a mix of brewing and wine making.

I like Killians too. Haven't had any in a while. I like novelty and variety, These days, that is not a problem, and more the opposite. The choices have become overwhelming.

 

[metis]

I like some of the Guinness brews.

Ah, a man to my own heart. At the store, I get the can with the nitrogen release in it, and the difference is significant-- much like having fix in pop versus flat pop.

[in Michigan, we're very sophisticated, so we say "pop" and not "soda". Soda here has a different meaning-- and a real good one! Name drop: "Sanders".]

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well if evolutionists disagree about some aspect of evolution, it must all be wrong, obviously.


Just like how we know Christianity, in all its forms, is a farce because there are YECs and OECs. I'm sure our resident logician would agree.

Of course. Any disagreement over the details refutes a scientific theory. It's Science 101. When scientists have doubts they should throw out the evidence and rely totally on their own bias and subjectivity. How else are we to regress as a people?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I too am intrigued. I would also like to see how sexual selection Is evidence against evolution as he claims.

I cannot wait to the nothing he will dazzle us with.

Is this a claim you were talking about, that I didn't elaborate on? (Probably.)

Ok, I'll address it.
It actually would help w/ microevolution. But would tend to inhibit macro.

As most know, females in many species only look for the best in prospective mates: strongest, prettiest, most endurance, etc. So, this behavior would tend to strengthen the ability of the progeny to survive.
At the same time, these sexual selection pressures would inhibit any mutation that would produce unusual traits, from being selected. Such obvious 'weirdness' would work against an organism's gene promotion.


" I cannot wait to the nothing he will dazzle us with."

Come on, stop. Stop with the jibs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, a man to my own heart. At the store, I get the can with the nitrogen release in it, and the difference is significant-- much like having fix in pop versus flat pop.

[in Michigan, we're very sophisticated, so we say "pop" and not "soda". Soda here has a different meaning-- and a real good one! Name drop: "Sanders".]

I think it was drinking Boddingtons when I first encountered one of those little widgets. I like how they keep the beer smooth. Especially those with body to them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I like some of the Guinness brews. Even a few that require a spoon. I got interested in panics years ago ago and will occasionally ignore the cost to enjoy some of those. Lindemans produces a number of lambics using a variety of fruit in secondary fermentation that make them excellent dessert beverages to accompany a meal. These are probably the most well-known in the US. The lambics have fascinating history and production that is almost a mix of brewing and wine making.

I like Killians too. Haven't had any in a while. I like novelty and variety, These days, that is not a problem, and more the opposite. The choices have become overwhelming.

You seem to know quite a lot about them. Use a "spoon'?! My goodness, don't know if I would like that!

You like wine? I've found a great brand, pretty cheap, too... "Liberty Creek". Best sweet red I ever drank!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If you read that quote carefully, you'll notice something....

That something, is that all scientists agree that the cambrian explosion happened.
Which means that they agree that many of the main branches of life, phyla, evolved in a geologically short period of time, from 40 to 80 million years.

The "disagreement" (quotes because it's not so much that they "disagree", it's rather that there are still open questions and unknowns), is about what exact circumstances were at play which made it possible.


But again, there's no disagreement concerning the fact that it happened.
All the evidence, shows it happened.

Yeah, it's fact. Denying it, is stupidity.
The problem always comes with the interpretations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah! In moderation.

H(some "reasoning" on the Scriptures, about that topic: Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine. It makes no sense to then say, we shouldn't enjoy some from time to time!
But the Bible does condemn drunkenness.
If you put it together....enjoy, to a point.
OK, enough of that!)

There for a while, I was getting into Killian's Red, I really like the Amber beers.
I've got a Yuengling Amber in my fridge now.

You like the stouts? You mentioned British beer...reminded me of Guinness.

I have to admit that that is a bit more reasonable of a belief than the Seventh Day Adventists have. At least the ones that I have talked to claim that the wine that Jesus drank was grape juice, Unfermented.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is this a claim you were talking about, that I didn't elaborate on? (Probably.)

Ok, I'll address it.
It actually would help w/ microevolution. But would tend to inhibit macro.

As most know, females in many species only look for the best in prospective mates: strongest, prettiest, most endurance, etc. So, this behavior would tend to strengthen the ability of the progeny to survive.
At the same time, these sexual selection pressures would inhibit any mutation that would produce unusual traits, from being selected. Such obvious 'weirdness' would work against an organism's gene promotion.


" I cannot wait to the nothing he will dazzle us with."

Come on, stop. Stop with the jibs.

Your scenario assumes weirdness that would not be protected by sexual selection Is some sort of dominant feature to mutations and selection. Changes do not occur in a vacuum, and there can be strange examples that decrease fitness under unusual or novel conditions, like giant racks of antlers. But these are not the norm. You are confining your thinking only to the evidence that supports your pre-supposed position.

Mutations effecting physiology, disease resistance, etc., would not be under direct selection by sexual selection, but would increase fitness. Often characters under sexual selection are proxies to fitness. A male that can expend resources supporting an otherwise superfluous trait is showing he has high fitness. This has been demonstrated in a number of studies with birds. Tail length in male swallows is preferred by females and correlated to overall health of those males.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, it's fact. Denying it, is stupidity.
The problem always comes with the interpretations.

How is it a reasonable interpretation to conclude the failure of evolutionary theory based on unanswered questions? If the questions are unanswered, then a failure cannot be known.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your scenario assumes weirdness that would not be protected by sexual selection Is some sort of dominant feature to mutations and selection. Changes do not occur in a vacuum, and there can be strange examples that decrease fitness under unusual or novel conditions, like giant racks of antlers. But these are not the norm. You are confining your thinking only to the evidence that supports your pre-supposed position.

Mutations effecting physiology, disease resistance, etc., would not be under direct selection by sexual selection, but would increase fitness. Often characters under sexual selection are proxies to fitness. A male that can expend resources supporting an otherwise superfluous trait is showing he has high fitness. This has been demonstrated in a number of studies with birds. Tail length in male swallows is preferred by females and correlated to overall health of those males.

I simply said it would "inhibit", not completely stop.

So-long for now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, it's fact. Denying it, is stupidity.
The problem always comes with the interpretations.

So you agree with all those scientists that it's a fact that many of the current phyla evolved during the cambrian explosion which lasted some 40 to 80 million years?

Because again, their "disagreement" is not about the fact that it happened (where "it" is the evolutionary change that occured during the cambrain), but rather about which circumstancial factors were at work to trigger this relatively rapid diversification of biological life forms.

 

[nPeace]

Except this is how it actually reads in more direct English:
[20]O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, ...

IOW, the word "science" wasn't known back then even in Hebrew or Greek, nor was there any such word for it. It seems that the Bible your leaders have you using has a rather clear-cut "agenda".

Falsely called science. Falsely called knowledge. Philosophies of men. What's the difference? I don't see any. What difference do you see?

I wonder if you will be willing to admit that, it's not JWs with the agenda, here, but rather that you have a problem with JWs, and like other posters on here, those emotions drive your response to the posts of any JW.
In other words, rather than debate what the poster says, you attack the poster, and their religion... so long as you know the person is a JW. Is that fair to say?
Here, let me show you...
You say, "It seems that the Bible your leaders have you using has a rather clear-cut "agenda"."
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing.
All it does is detract from the point the poster is making.
It almost seems like some people bring their hangups about JWs from their doorstep, to their computer. ...and they just like to use the word agenda when they talk to JWs.
Yet, there are people of all religions - including Methodists, Anglican, Catholic... all of the religions - who disagree with your belief (about ToE). Some even publicly denounce theistic evolution ... from the pulpit too.
So it really beats me, why you keep putting your

on JWs when discussing this topic.
Can you please explain? That one has got me beat. I understand the hatred. I know the reason for that... but this... why?

The other thing which shows it's clearly an emotional response, is this - The translation I used is the good old KJV, which most members of the Methodist church love, and consider to be... "the holy Bible" - the real Bible.
So. there you go. You made a false accusation, and if that wasn't driven by emotions...

Also, whether people accept it or not, JWs have no leaders. They consider what the Bible says at Matthew 23:8-11 to be words of truth, not allegory or myth, but words said by a real person, who performed miracles, through the power given him by his supernatural Father. Yes. The same one - Jesus - who himself came from a supernatural origin.
Thus JWs take seriously, those words in the Bible - the book about God - and apply them.

That fine as far as faith is concerned, and I read the scriptures 7 days a week. But the scriptures simply are not objectively-derived statements of evidence that is the basis for science. Likewise, science doesn't help us with our faith per se.

IOW, they cover different areas and use different techniques.

Millions of Christians disagree with you on that.
Many, who are not JWs would disagree with a passion - including scientist. "What? The scriptures are not what?
Isn't that equivalent to calling the Bible writers liars? Are you saying they had no knowledge, and none that was gained through investigation?

Why do you read the scriptures seven days a week, if you consider most of it myth? Do you include Genesis, and how do you read Jesus' words about Moses?

Sorry that I get "fired up" at times. Even this doesn't justify my harsh words as this is something that hits me to my very core because of how I grew up in the past and how so very difficult is was for me to abandon the fundamentalist church I grew up in and loved. But the simple fact is that I was being lied to, and when I realized as such, I had no choice but to leave that church. And this wasn't the only area where they were lying to us, btw.

Anyhow, sorry for my being so direct and rude, so please accept my apology.

I appreciate your telling me this, because it confirms what I said above, doesn't it? Emotions do get in the was of fruitful discussion sometimes.
Thank you for admitting that... and I accept your apology.
At least, in future, if it does happen again, I will try to remember this... and remind you of it.

I understand quite well, that people are lied to, in their religions, and I think it is easy to see why, and how that happens.
Were you being lied to about Bible teachings, what was being done with your monetary contributions, or what was going on behind closed doors?
It's hard to be lied to, about Biblical teachings, if one is a serious student of the Bible.
That's why, I appreciate the method JWs use, in seeking to imitate their master, Christ Jesus.
They visit their neighbors homes, and offer them a free Bible study. In this way, the householder is not obligated to swallow what is preached from a pulpit. The householder can think for themselves, ask questions, challenge answers given, or shown, and are not under obligation, or do not feel compelled to accept these teachings. Some do not even become JWs after studying for years. They may even attend meetings regularly, and never become a JW.
Even if someone walks off the street, and starts attending meeting, perhaps because they admire the conduct of JWs, or they heard something they like, they too have to go through the same process of studying the Bible. If after studying a person has problems with certain teachings, they are free to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
No one becomes a JW, unless they agree of their own accord, that what they see in the Bible is in agreement with what JWs are teaching.
So if one ever feels that the JWs are teaching lies, they are not obligated to attend our meetings.
The householder has full control over their choice.

Contrary to this, people leave their home, looking for a place of worship to go, but because they have very little knowledge of what the Bible really teaches, they are "in the hands of their pastor", and don't know if they are being fed manna, or mod. Often it's mud. So they leave with tummy aches, or worst. Some wisely, never return. Those we often find.
So, I understand full well, that situation.
The question is though, do people run from one mud table, only to feed at another, where the mud is just made with added sugar.

 

[metis]

Best sweet red I ever drank!

Which mature wine consumer would EVER drink SWEET red wine!!! You're not a wine connoisseur-- you're a wine sewer!!!

Buy me a good Bordeaux and I'll be your friend forever!

 

[metis]

Falsely called science. Falsely called knowledge. Philosophies of men. What's the difference? I don't see any. What difference do you see?

Because "knowledge" simply is not the same as "science", therefore the Bible you've used is seriously slanted. "Science" is a process (study of), whereas "knowledge" is how much one knows. Because I know how to count to 10 and know my alphabet doesn't make that "science" or me a "scientist".

Thus, the question I have for you is why did the editors of your Bible use "science" and not "knowledge", whereas the latter if far more compatible with what the verse is actually telling us? Aren't you suspicious of that in the least?

I wonder if you will be willing to admit that, it's not JWs with the agenda, here, but rather that you have a problem with JWs, and like other posters on here, those emotions drive your response to the posts of any JW.

Because dishonest in the name of "Jehovah" is still dishonesty and an attempt to fleece the flock. There are so many blatant lies that have been put forth by several JW's here that have been rather easy to refute, but wven when some us clearly show how it's not true, some JW's here keep coming back with repeating the same lies over and over again.

An example is one of the JW's (not you) kept insisting that Catholics worship the sun, which I showed through official Catholic sources was forbidden for us to do, and yet that didn't stop that person from repeating that same bold-faced lie over and over again.

Why do you read the scriptures seven days a week, if you consider most of it myth? Do you include Genesis, and how do you read Jesus' words about Moses?

Of course I include Genesis.

Contrary to this, people leave their home, looking for a place of worship to go, but because they have very little knowledge of what the Bible really teaches, they are "in the hands of their pastor", and don't know if they are being fed manna, or mod.

I studied Christian theology in college, and have literally read probably somewhere between 200-300 books. I've taught Christian and Jewish theology for several decades now, and as I said before I read the scriptures ever day of the week.

Sorry, but I gotta go for the day.

 

[nPeace]

@Hockeycowboy that was a great debate.
Do you get the impression that Michael Shermer does not listen. Perhaps his mind is just running wild.

Question for Michael Shermer.
Can Michael Shermer provide just one example of random mutations, erecting whole new genetic information that leads to a new vertical species?

Michael Shermer : Well first of all... natural selection is not random.
Wait what? Who said anything about natural selection being random?

 

[nPeace]

Because "knowledge" simply is not the same as "science", therefore the Bible you've used is seriously slanted. "Science" is a process (study of), whereas "knowledge" is how much one knows. Because I know how to count to 10 and know my alphabet doesn't make that "science" or me a "scientist".

Thus, the question I have for you is why did the editors of your Bible use "science" and not "knowledge", whereas the latter if far more compatible with what the verse is actually telling us? Aren't you suspicious of that in the least?

Evidently, you did not read my post, but skipped through it.
If you needed to rush off, you could have responded when you returned.
How would you feel if you took the time to respond to someone, and they did not bother listening to, or considering half of what you said?
That's not very inviting, is it?
Wouldn't you feel like you wasted your time, and wouldn't feel inclined to do it again?

Repeating... The translation I used is the KJV (King James Version).
KJV: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

There is also the WBT (Webster Bible Translation)
WBT: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;

The transaction of JWs, in the NWT. It uses the word knowledge.
(1 Timothy 6:20) Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

However, if it used the word "science", it would not be incorrect.
Greek
γνώσεως

Strong's Concordance
Transliteration: gnósis:
Definition: a knowing, knowledge
Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")

science (n.)
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").

Because dishonest in the name of "Jehovah" is still dishonesty and an attempt to fleece the flock. There are so many blatant lies that have been put forth by several JW's here that have been rather easy to refute, but wven when some us clearly show how it's not true, some JW's here keep coming back with repeating the same lies over and over again.

An example is one of the JW's (not you) kept insisting that Catholics worship the sun, which I showed through official Catholic sources was forbidden for us to do, and yet that didn't stop that person from repeating that same bold-faced lie over and over again.

This is not the thread to get into that, but I know the poster was not lying, and you admitted that you left a previous religion, because you found out, you were being lied to.
So might the poster be really lovingly be pointing out to you, that you are being lied to again. Did you take note - one mud table to another?

Can I quote what you said here, in another thread, so we can discuss it?

Of course I include Genesis.

Perhaps you didn't want to address the other questions.
Can I ask you a few questions on this, in another thread?

I studied Christian theology in college, and have literally read probably somewhere between 200-300 books. I've taught Christian and Jewish theology for several decades now, and as I said before I read the scriptures ever day of the week.

Sorry, but I gotta go for the day.

Studying theology is not the same as studying the Bible. It's studying doctrines, which is no different to being taught what to believe.
Jesus did not go to any school, to learn the scriptures, nor did his followers. Yet the were well versed, not in the religious doctrines, Jesus called "commands of men as doctrines".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How is it a reasonable interpretation to conclude the failure of evolutionary theory based on unanswered questions? If the questions are unanswered, then a failure cannot be known.

I'm just curious....what, in your opinion, would be the ultimate failure of the theory of Common Descent? Not all of evolutionary theory, but just of UCA? Is there really anything you would accept?

Regarding the theory that more genetic similarities always denotes closer relationship: Did you ever hear of an argument against that understanding, in the form of the genetic similarities between scallops and tarantulas, two vastly different organisms?

I really have no opinion, or even know if it's accurate... if scallops do share genes that are found in tarantulas. It was just in passing. I haven't researched it. Have you heard or read anything on it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you agree with all those scientists that it's a fact that many of the current phyla evolved during the cambrian explosion which lasted some 40 to 80 million years?

No...they have found no obvious precursors! That would be the deciding evidence. But they are missing.

The fact, is that those creatures in the Cambrian exist.....that's what I was referring to.