Evolution Observed

[Whitestone]

Such common 'Horizontal adaptations' as well as hybrids and mutations are only recently given the term "evolution", and it is inappropriate. A disciplined scientist wouldn't get too excited about such claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such common 'Horizontal adaptations' as well as hybrids and mutations are only recently given the term "evolution", and it is inappropriate. A disciplined scientist wouldn't get too excited about such claims.

Why? You are now making the frequent creationist claim that one can walk to the end of the block but a five mile hike is out of the question. If you want to make this claim then you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself to find a limit to "micro-evolution". None has been found to date. Ask any biologist. It is all just evolution.

 

[Whitestone]

Why? You are now making the frequent creationist claim that one can walk to the end of the block but a five mile hike is out of the question. If you want to make this claim then you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself to find a limit to "micro-evolution". None has been found to date. Ask any biologist. It is all just evolution.

This is all just old stuff akin to the peppered moth days, remember that? When the lighter colored moths were being eaten because they showed in stark relief against the darkened birch bark and so only the lighter ones came forth? Then all the atheists attempted to credit "evolution" in their excitement over common environmental adaptations... yet it is still the same specie of moth... The point is, the responsibility for sound science claims does not require me to claim that micro cellular adaptation is "evolution". It won't become a different creature, it will always be a speckled moth. Look at the volumes of thought expended over that topic. It is no different now with this bird. And the whole thing comes back to ignoring the fossil evidence against evolution, having never found a missing link or transition... not to mention ignoring God speaking specifically of His creating each specific species after it's kind... Evolution is the true scientist's dunce in the corner. I am a scientist. It is embarrassing that the branch of "theory" that exists called "evolution/darwinism" is even called science, possessing no empirical evidence to earn that title. The only thing I've observed of it so far, in my professional opinion, is that it is a religious form of Atheist's Theology. So the proof is on an "evolutionist"... and you will have to do much better

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is all just old stuff akin to the peppered moth days, remember that? When the lighter colored moths were being eaten because they showed in stark relief against the darkened birch bark and so only the lighter ones came forth? Then all the atheists attempted to credit "evolution" in their excitement over common environmental adaptations... yet it is still the same specie of moth... The point is, the responsibility for sound science claims does not require me to claim that micro cellular adaptation is "evolution". It won't become a different creature, it will always be a speckled moth. Look at the volumes of thought expended over that topic. It is no different now with this bird. And the whole thing comes back to ignoring the fossil evidence against evolution, having never found a missing link or transition... not to mention ignoring God speaking specifically of His creating each specific species after it's kind... Evolution is the true scientist's dunce in the corner. I am a scientist. It is embarrassing that the branch of "theory" that exists called "evolution/darwinism" is even called science, possessing no empirical evidence to earn that title. The only thing I've observed of it so far, in my professional opinion, is that it is a religious form of Atheist's Theology. So the proof is on an "evolutionist"... and you will have to do much better

So you don't understand the lesson of the peppered moth either. Why am I not surprised. And you make the error of conflating evolution with atheism. There are far more Christians that accept the theory of evolution than there are atheists that accept it.

Once again, you made a claim. You need to be able to support it. There is almost unlimited support for the theory of evolution at all levels. There is none that I know of for creationism. That is why of those scientists that understand it over 99% accept the theory. They are NOT all atheists. There is a high percentage of Christians among them.

 

[Whitestone]

I provided the example of the peppered moth so that you would learn the lesson. Shall I say I am not surprised you didn't get that? I made no errors. I refuted your claim, that is all I "need" to do, as if I "needed" to do anything at all. You appear to be arguing against a "creationist"... which has more than one meaning, so I don't know what you mean. Yes, I believe God created each specie after it's kind and not through evolution, where each specie morphed into a various different specie. I reject that as a scientist and as a Christian who knows the Word of God. If you meant "creationist" meaning someone believing in six 24 hour days of creation, I do not believe that. A "day" in scriptures often denotes a long indeterminate period of time, like an epoch or era. And the fossil record shows the millions of years, that is plain. One thing it does not show though, I repeat, is a transitional creature as in accordance with the Theoretical Doctrine of Darwism. When that actually is discovered, I will be one of the first to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided the example of the peppered moth so that you would learn the lesson. Shall I say I am not surprised you didn't get that? I made no errors. I refuted your claim, that is all I "need" to do, as if I "needed" to do anything at all. You appear to be arguing against a "creationist"... which has more than one meaning, so I don't know what you mean. Yes, I believe God created each specie after it's kind and not through evolution, where each specie morphed into a various different specie. I reject that as a scientist and as a Christian who knows the Word of God. If you meant "creationist" meaning someone believing in six 24 hour days of creation, I do not believe that. A "day" in scriptures often denotes a long indeterminate period of time, like an epoch or era. And the fossil record shows the millions of years, that is plain. One thing it does not show though, I repeat, is a transitional creature as in accordance with the Theoretical Doctrine of Darwism. When that actually is discovered, I will be one of the first to know.

Yes, you did. The peppered moth is an example of a species responding to a change in environment. Basically a walk to the end of the block. If you want to make a claim the burden of proof is upon you. I can explain some of the evidence of evolution for you. You do not appear to have any for your beliefs. And that means that you are not a scientist. Also you are making the gross error of thinking that the Bible is the "Word of God" when it does not even make that claim.

You are not a YEC, a young earth creationist, but you are still a creationist. Just as flat Earth believers are wrong because they read the Bible literally, so are you.

And please, as a Christian you should know better than to make false claims about others There is no "Doctrine of Darwin". The theory of evolution has changed over time as more information has come in. That is the way of scientific theories. It has never been shown to be wrong. Your beliefs are so out there that it is not science.

 

[Whitestone]

If I were wrong because you say so sir, I am ok with that. Thank you for your opinion. You evolutionists push your unfounded claims exactly like religious fanatics push theirs, no difference. Both of the same mold, of which I am neither. Both are intellectually and spiritually offensive. If you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God then what have I to do with you? Do you even believe in God? If not, please don't even respond.

Psalm_14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I were wrong because you say so sir, I am ok with that. Thank you for your opinion. You evolutionists push your unfounded claims exactly like religious fanatics push theirs, no difference. Both of the same mold, of which I am neither. Both are intellectually and spiritually offensive. If you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God then what have I to do with you? Do you even believe in God? If not, please don't even respond.

Psalm_14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

Too bad that you did not understand the verse that you quoted. It could even be said to be correct. Perhaps if you think about it you will realize your error. Also using the Bible to try to attack someone else is not very Christian.

And you are not wrong just because I say so. You are clearly wrong because you made a rather ignorant claim and then ran away from supporting it. And now you are lying about others. Our claims are not unfounded. They are based upon evidence and the scientific method. And it is your denial of reality that is intellectually and spiritually offensive. I used to be a Christian and I still resent Christians that make the belief look bad.

Tell me, with all of its flaws why would any Christian call the Bible the "Word of God"?

You have made a bogus claim. Whenever anyone makes a claim in a debate that puts the burden of proof upon him when challenged. I can support my claims. Why can't you support yours?

 

[Jose Fly]

Such common 'Horizontal adaptations' as well as hybrids and mutations are only recently given the term "evolution",.

Hang on a sec......can we see some support for this claim?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is all just old stuff akin to the peppered moth days, remember that? When the lighter colored moths were being eaten because they showed in stark relief against the darkened birch bark and so only the lighter ones came forth? Then all the atheists attempted to credit "evolution" in their excitement over common environmental adaptations... yet it is still the same specie of moth...

Can you show examples of what you're talking about? I'm quite familiar with the peppered moth story, and my recollection is that it is primarily used to illustrate the mechanism of natural selection.

The point is, the responsibility for sound science claims does not require me to claim that micro cellular adaptation is "evolution". It won't become a different creature, it will always be a speckled moth. Look at the volumes of thought expended over that topic. It is no different now with this bird.

What do you mean by "evolution" and "adaptation"? What are the differences between the two?

And the whole thing comes back to ignoring the fossil evidence against evolution, having never found a missing link or transition

Really? The scientific community seems to have the exact opposite view of the evidence, and there are loads of published papers describing specific intermediate fossils and evolutionary transitions. So why do you think we should ignore all that and just go with your empty say-so?

not to mention ignoring God speaking specifically of His creating each specific species after it's kind

Those are religious beliefs, and as a scientist you should appreciate how they are irrelevant to the data at hand.

Evolution is the true scientist's dunce in the corner. I am a scientist. It is embarrassing that the branch of "theory" that exists called "evolution/darwinism" is even called science, possessing no empirical evidence to earn that title.

Except for that pesky little fact that we see populations evolve, all the time, right before our eyes......so much so that we both exploit the process to our own ends (e.g., domestication) and fight against it (e.g., antibiotic resistance).

The only thing I've observed of it so far, in my professional opinion, is that it is a religious form of Atheist's Theology. So the proof is on an "evolutionist"... and you will have to do much better

The vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists, so your "professional opinion" is extremely misguided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be honest! OMG, I can't believe I'm being honest!

I'm really have too many questions and am very congnizant of the fact that science continues to correct itself. (In the area of evoltuion and its efforts to promote atheism, I also have a bias inherit distrust. I look at the human being and all that is around and, quite frankily, I find it absurd for people to think there is not God. (My personal view).

Additionally, I don't think a billion years is enough to creat what we see by chance. I think it would take at leat a trillion years.

So, I let people be people that have different veiwpoints; don't make much to do about the differences; and remain with my viewpoints until someone says something that is convincing enough for me do consider my position.

Are you claiming science is trying to promote atheism? When did this happen? Science doesn't promote theism or atheism.

You are describing a belief (your belief). Your belief has nothing to do with evidence and appears to be driven solely by unsupported bias. I can't imagine that you haven't had access to enough information to understand what is going on in the living world and that it is explained by theories like the ToE.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If this is the basis for a counter to what I said... you have fortified my belief.

To be fair, most of the strict creationists I have encountered haven't shown too many qualms about stretching the truth. I'm sure that individual reasons and how far each will go varies, but I have found it to be the norm. The problem arises when you can't tell the difference between honest, genuine ignorance of science and active deceit and, in some cases, delusion.

There really is no way to correct errors in a religion. There is no basic set of laws that govern religion that you find in science. There is no peer review. Anyone can say anything and there is no consequence to doing so. A person can claim that by virtue of the fact that they personally can't see how something happened and use that statement as evidence that it didn't happen or as the basis for questioning science. There is a lot of this world, I don't understand, but that is on me to learn it, not to consider it as evidence against science. It is evidence of my own ignorance and nothing more.

Errors in religion are ignored, perpetuated, glorified, but never corrected. Scholars do try a systematic approach at understanding and explaining inconsistencies in the text of major religions, but most of their work is ignored by general adherents. I have seen the two obvious and different versions of Genesis 1 dealt with by sweeping one under the other as merely a summary of the first, when it is clearly not a summary, but is adding new information or changes not in the first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand. Unless I have a degree in every subject matter that exists, I cannot have an intelligible response to anything in those areas. Got it! And, obviously, you know me personally to be able to assert whether I am honest or not.

You don't need a degree in every subject, but you can't ignore the products of those subjects because it is at odds with dogma.

What is methodological naturalism?

You should be able to find this on your own, but here is one definition: "Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue."
Lawrence Lerner

If you don't have an intelligent response, just attack the person you are responding to. Got it!

The reason I like Metis, is because he doesn't attack people...he discusses.... intelligibly

I don't know Metis, but I don't think Subduction Zone is attacking you. You simply are trying to attribute evidence to mean something you can't demonstrate and he is calling you on it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK... then I can rely on this partial list of people?

View attachment 19733



Hmmm... I believe James Allan is a geneticist.

• Creationist
• Genetics
• Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland
• M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa
• B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal
• Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch
• International consultant in dairy cattle breeding

Can I accept his position because he is educated? If not, why? Do yo have a PhD in genetics?

What is this list about? Is it scientists that place their beliefs above the evidence? They can do that if they like, but it isn't evidence that their beliefs are true and they can't demonstrate those beliefs are superior to what is found using science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Got it... If one disagrees with you, they need more education. If they have an education, they have an agenda. Am I in the presence of an almighty one?

Somehow I knew that one was coming!

He has a point. You disagree and it appears to be based on ignorance of the science and bias that you admit you have. More education might serve for you to better understand what it is you are against and to offer better reasons why you are against it. Claiming that you personally can't see how life could have evolved is telling, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I couldn't use it as evidence to look more closely at the ToE or the evidence it explains. It has no value outside of a reason why you choose to ignore the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A number of those that you listed supported the 6 day literal Creation. What none of them have been able to explain is the problem of the Thermodynamics of the earth history as possibly taking place in a 6 day Creation and/or any sort of catastrophic world flood scenario. You do not need to be rocket scientist to understand the problem. All you need is undergraduate geology and physics. The vast amount of energy required for the volcanics, metamorphism. erosion, weathering and sedimentation is exponentially overwhelming any fundamentalist Creationist scenario. If this amount of energy took place in a short period of time the earth would be a cinder orbiting the sun.

None of the scientists on the list have provided a complete coherent scientific explanation of the physical evidence of the rock strata of the earth not even considering the radiometric dating involved. The list you provided is not a partial list. You are scraping the bottom of the bucket of Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute.

I reviewed their biographies, blogs and sites that quoted them, and ALL of them, like you, appeal to their religious belief to justify their belief concerning the science of evolution and the physical history of the earth, and did not provide a coherent scientific explanation of ALL the physical evidence to justify their 'beliefs.'

You can bet that when it comes time to publish, none of that is included, unless they publish in some non-peer reviewed, pseudoscience journal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. The uneducated must become educated to find the truth. There is a difference between trusting those who are educated and becoming educated yourself.


Then educate yourself enough to correct them.



Or, the uneducated were simply the more gullible.



When science says something 'might have' or 'could have' happened, they usually mean that 'to the best of our knowledge and all of the evidence, it happened'. An honest scientists in a journal article will detail the alternative explanations and why they don't fit the evidence. And yes, most scientists are honest.

Nothing about the real world is *absolutely* certain in every single detail.



I would hope that the facts of the case, as presented in the textbooks, will stick in their heads. The populatrizers are those attempting to get some of the word out to the general public.




Well, that is your particular mythology, with no actual evidence to back it up. Science works from observation and extensive testing of ideas, not by faith, but by skepticism.



The problem is not in 'dodgy' interpretation of evidence. It is that the evidence doesn't support your mythology.



I see education as a good. Furthermore, anyone can become more educated whenever they want. The amount of available information is incredible, much more so than even when I was young. Today there is no excuse for remaining ignorant (i.e, uneducated by choice).



Once you demonstrate that your opinion in this matter is, in fact, the truth, you might have a case. Until then, your ideas can be ignored as contrary to the actual evidence at hand.


I see, when it disagrees with your mythology, it isn't true science.

Sorry, honest investigation doesn't work that way. It looks at the evidence and is willing to go where it leads, not where religious doctrine dictates.

Well said.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No problem on that one and has some truth to it... but what you said and what they said doesn't seem to quite match up.

Not to mention... how do they know what education I have had?

It appears that what he says and what others are saying matches up very well.

I don't know what education you have, but based on what you have said here about evolution and science, it doesn't appear to be very broad in the sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suppose if they took everything I said on a "literal" basis mixed in with a little bit of judgmental attitude instead of thaking the thought I was expressing, one could have decided to come to that erroneous position

We can only know you by what you post here. If you don't want it misconstrued, don't you think you have an obligation to make sure that it isn't by posting clearly what you mean?

For instance, I have no issue with your personal beliefs. I want that to be clear. I have personal beliefs as well. The problem I see is that you are expanding your personal beliefs to include or exclude things without demonstrating reason to do so. You are saying things without support of any evidence. For instance, no scientists says that life poofed itself into existence. Another is your claims about the confidence around scientific explanations and the difference between proof and evidence. You are demanding a standard that includes absolute proof from science, without regard to the position actually held in science, by scientists and the nature of evidence and proof. I might add, that you are demanding this while not providing an equivalent for your own claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such common 'Horizontal adaptations' as well as hybrids and mutations are only recently given the term "evolution", and it is inappropriate. A disciplined scientist wouldn't get too excited about such claims.

Could you elaborate on this?