Flight Evolution in Birds

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence that animals can and do change, but not to the extent that new animals result.

Regarding the work of the paleontologist:
Yes, obviously so.. evolutionary-thinking paleontologists often impose an evolutionary interpretation upon the newly discovered finds (at least as far as it would appear that a particular find holds any sort of value).

And, whether or not the evolutionary interpretation is “justified.” To whom are you referring? To evolutionist it’s justified; to the creationist it’s not.

Hope I summing up your query well..

Just a quick note, there is no "change of kind" in evolution. At best that is a creationist strawman. Changes are slow and gradual and the next generation is always the same "kind" as the former.

 

[Crossboard]

What do you mean by "new animals"?


Given what I explained earlier (CLICK HERE), why do you feel paleontologists are "imposing" an evolutionary interpretation, rather than simply concluding that since new traits, abilities, and species are generated by evolutionary mechanisms today, the same is true of the past?


I'm referring to you. You seem to believe that paleontologists are imposing evolution onto their finds, which implies that you believe doing so is not justified.


Yep.

New animal, meaning different animal. An animal that flies is a different animal from one which does not fly. This is what I meant by “new.”

I used the word “impose” only because you used that word to begin with. I figured that if I did not respond with that specific word, you may find issue with me for avoiding that specific word. So, is all good?

Help me out: what new species have we witnessed being generated by evolutionary mechanism today?

 

[Subduction Zone]

New animal, meaning different animal. An animal that flies is a different animal from one which does not fly. This is what I meant by “new.”

I used the word “impose” only because you used that word to begin with. I figured that if I did not respond with that specific word, you may find issue with me for avoiding that specific word. So, is all good?

Help me out: what new species have we witnessed being generated by evolutionary mechanism today?

Quite a few, but first you need to understand what a different species is. A different species is simply one group that cannot breed with another. We can see evolution in action with ring species. That is where species get separated over time and the neighboring species can breed with each other, but those on where the ring meets up again can't:

Discovering a ring species

Oregonensis can breed with xanthoptica which and breed with eschsholtzii, and oregonensis can breed with platensis which can breed with corceater. But croceater cannot breed with eschscholtzii. They are different species. It is an example of evolution in action. If we had only the last two and let them continue to evolve the differences would get greater and greater over time.

 

[Jose Fly]

New animal, meaning different animal. An animal that flies is a different animal from one which does not fly. This is what I meant by “new.”

We see evolutionary mechanisms producing animals that are different than their ancestors all the time. We both exploit the process (domestication) as well as fight against it (antibiotic resistance).

I used the word “impose” only because you used that word to begin with. I figured that if I did not respond with that specific word, you may find issue with me for avoiding that specific word. So, is all good?

Not really, because you haven't addressed the main point. Again....

We've been observing, studying, experimenting on, and documenting the behaviors of all sorts of different organisms for well over a century now, and one thing is overwhelmingly clear.....populations evolve....all the time. Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever observed to arise has done so via evolutionary means. No matter what population we study for any length of time, it evolves.

So just from a purely logical standpoint, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past. When we look at the fossil record, we see change over time. We see old species disappear and new ones appear. We see new traits arise. Given the above, logic would seem to dictate that those events are the result of the same processes we observe today. After all, when we see an ash layer between geologic strata, we conclude that it's the result of a volcanic eruption. Why? Because that's what we see produce ash layers today.

Help me out: what new species have we witnessed being generated by evolutionary mechanism today?

Here's a sample that shows the evolution of new species is a directly observed and documented fact in quite diverse taxa...

Finches

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Fruit flies

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. - PubMed - NCBI

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. - PubMed - NCBI

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Cichlids

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? - PubMed - NCBI

Cicadas

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem. - PubMed - NCBI

Chronic speciation in periodical cicadas. - PubMed - NCBI

Yeast

Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast. - PubMed - NCBI

Bacteria

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10752687&dopt=Abstract

Goatsbeard

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

Sparrows

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05183.x/abstract

Apple maggot fly (in the process)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=12663534&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum


http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/suppl_1/6573

 

[Crossboard]

Just a quick note, there is no "change of kind" in evolution. At best that is a creationist strawman. Changes are slow and gradual and the next generation is always the same "kind" as the former.

Yes, I recall an earlier posting which elaborated a bit more on this idea (pasted below):

(( “I like to point out that in evolution there is no "change of kind". All of your offspring will always be human beings, no matter how much they evolve. But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes It was an ape. You still are an ape. No "change of kind". You share a common ancestor with lemurs, monkeys, and lesser apes. That ancestor was a primate.. You still are a primate. No change of kind. You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and cats. That species was a mammal. You share a common ancestor with lizards, snakes, and even fish. That ancestor was a vertebrate, you are still a vertebrate. No change of kind.

The claim of "a completely different kind" of animal is a bogus one. If we go back far enough we are all the same kind. But once a split is made there is no going back. Your offspring will not be plants of any sort. Or dogs of any sort. Or birds of any sort. Working backwards we only see a slow change where one parent is always the same "kind" as the offspring.” ))

I much appreciated the description. It was a very succinct overview of what the evolution idea entails. And I want to say that it is an effort to appeal to logic and common sense, which I like!

However, what I read in your summary is not so much reasons for accepting evolution, but rather it’s only an overview of what evolution claims.

Yes, you broke it down (man, ape, primate, mammal, etc.), and I’ll supppse that each individual step in the progression seems to appeal to reason in your mind. But in total, it ceases to become evidence for evolution - - it becomes the claim itself. It’s as if you’re trying to convince me that evolution is true simply by telling me that evolution is true!

Yes, I acknowledge common traits in all living things (right down to the cell), but that recognition does not necessitate common ancestry - - unless I grasp a world view which pushes it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I recall an earlier posting which elaborated a bit more on this idea (pasted below):

(( “I like to point out that in evolution there is no "change of kind". All of your offspring will always be human beings, no matter how much they evolve. But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes It was an ape. You still are an ape. No "change of kind". You share a common ancestor with lemurs, monkeys, and lesser apes. That ancestor was a primate.. You still are a primate. No change of kind. You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and cats. That species was a mammal. You share a common ancestor with lizards, snakes, and even fish. That ancestor was a vertebrate, you are still a vertebrate. No change of kind.

The claim of "a completely different kind" of animal is a bogus one. If we go back far enough we are all the same kind. But once a split is made there is no going back. Your offspring will not be plants of any sort. Or dogs of any sort. Or birds of any sort. Working backwards we only see a slow change where one parent is always the same "kind" as the offspring.” ))

I much appreciated the description. It was a very succinct overview of what the evolution idea entails. And I want to say that it is an effort to appeal to logic and common sense, which I like!

However, what I read in your summary is not so much reasons for accepting evolution, but rather it’s only an overview of what evolution claims.

Yes, you broke it down (man, ape, primate, mammal, etc.), and I’ll supppse that each individual step in the progression seems to appeal to reason in your mind. But in total, it ceases to become evidence for evolution - - it becomes the claim itself. It’s as if you’re trying to convince me that evolution is true simply by telling me that evolution is true!

Yes, I acknowledge common traits in all living things (right down to the cell), but that recognition does not necessitate common ancestry - - unless I grasp a world view which pushes it.

The fact is that the theory of evolution is the only concept backed by scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. There is no scientific evidence for creationism since creationists appear to be afraid to make a proper testable hypothesis. One does not need to explain how God did it in such a hypothesis. One only needs to have a testable idea that explains why we see what we see. Since there is only evidence for one side I tend to accept that one side.

If a friend of yours was accused of shop lifting and the store had video, fingerprints, and eyewitnesses would you believe his unsupported denial? Creationists would be like your friend. You might want to believe him, but it appears that in this case that he, or they, are lying.

Earlier I was trying to explain how evolution works. I did not supply evidence. There is so much evidence for the theory of evolution it is hard to know where to start. The fossil record is rather obvious, but that by its very nature will be fragmentory. It will not be continuous. Yet every fossil found fits the theory of evolution paradigm and creationists have no explanation for that record that has not been refuted. Tell me what sort of evidence you would like to see and I will see if I can link some for you.

 

[Crossboard]

We see evolutionary mechanisms producing animals that are different than their ancestors all the time. We both exploit the process (domestication) as well as fight against it (antibiotic resistance).


Not really, because you haven't addressed the main point. Again....

We've been observing, studying, experimenting on, and documenting the behaviors of all sorts of different organisms for well over a century now, and one thing is overwhelmingly clear.....populations evolve....all the time. Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever observed to arise has done so via evolutionary means. No matter what population we study for any length of time, it evolves.

So just from a purely logical standpoint, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past. When we look at the fossil record, we see change over time. We see old species disappear and new ones appear. We see new traits arise. Given the above, logic would seem to dictate that those events are the result of the same processes we observe today. After all, when we see an ash layer between geologic strata, we conclude that it's the result of a volcanic eruption. Why? Because that's what we see produce ash layers today.


Here's a sample that shows the evolution of new species is a directly observed and documented fact in quite diverse taxa...

Finches

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Fruit flies

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. - PubMed - NCBI

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. - PubMed - NCBI

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Cichlids

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? - PubMed - NCBI

Cicadas

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem. - PubMed - NCBI

Chronic speciation in periodical cicadas. - PubMed - NCBI

Yeast

Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast. - PubMed - NCBI

Bacteria

Septic arthritis caused by a gram-negative bacterium representing a new species related to the Bordetella-Alcaligenes complex. - PubMed - NCBI

Goatsbeard

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

Sparrows

Hybrid speciation in sparrows I: phenotypic intermediacy, genetic admixture and barriers to gene flow

Apple maggot fly (in the process)

Evidence for inversion polymorphism related to sympatric host race formation in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. - PubMed - NCBI


Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Bush and the complexities of sympatric speciation in Rhagoletis

Wow, you’re quick! and very generous with the many links. This is a clear reminder to me that I stand as the obvious underdog with so much evolutionary material at instant disposal.

Using the first example (finch), this is an account of observed change within the specific animal. But it’s not showing observed change from its supposed previous ancestor. I take it this is where I need to depend on various circumstantial evidence from the fossil record, trust that time and slow gradual change made it happen.

 

[Crossboard]

The fact is that the theory of evolution is the only concept backed by scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. There is no scientific evidence for creationism since creationists appear to be afraid to make a proper testable hypothesis. One does not need to explain how God did it in such a hypothesis. One only needs to have a testable idea that explains why we see what we see. Since there is only evidence for one side I tend to accept that one side.

If a friend of yours was accused of shop lifting and the store had video, fingerprints, and eyewitnesses would you believe his unsupported denial? Creationists would be like your friend. You might want to believe him, but it appears that in this case that he, or they, are lying.

Earlier I was trying to explain how evolution works. I did not supply evidence. There is so much evidence for the theory of evolution it is hard to know where to start. The fossil record is rather obvious, but that by its very nature will be fragmentory. It will not be continuous. Yet every fossil found fits the theory of evolution paradigm and creationists have no explanation for that record that has not been refuted. Tell me what sort of evidence you would like to see and I will see if I can link some for you.

Thanks again for your notes. As odd as this might sound, I’m not really asking/demanding evidence such as is typically available. I’ve found it more intriguing to focus on elements of reason and logic.

You may choose to call it fear which keeps the creationist from attempting to form their testable hypotheses, but it’s not really that at all. It’s really more to do with the fact that matters regarding the origins of things cannot be tested in that way, using the scientific method. Same is true for the evolutionist. He can test to a degree for small changes and adaptation, but beyond that it’s conjecture.

And as you accurately noted, evolution is a theory right along with creation. In the end, it’s a matter of faith for both of us.

Not to be morbid, or to get too philosophical, but someday my heart will give out. And if I was wrong all along - - well, I suppose that at that point I will not be any the wiser anyway. And someday your heart gives out too. And should it turn out that you were wrong all along, it would appear that you’ll be aware of it. Anyway, I guess we both can draw opinions on which picture is the more enviable.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I recall an earlier posting which elaborated a bit more on this idea (pasted below):

(( “I like to point out that in evolution there is no "change of kind". All of your offspring will always be human beings, no matter how much they evolve. But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes It was an ape. You still are an ape. No "change of kind". You share a common ancestor with lemurs, monkeys, and lesser apes. That ancestor was a primate.. You still are a primate. No change of kind. You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and cats. That species was a mammal. You share a common ancestor with lizards, snakes, and even fish. That ancestor was a vertebrate, you are still a vertebrate. No change of kind.

The claim of "a completely different kind" of animal is a bogus one. If we go back far enough we are all the same kind. But once a split is made there is no going back. Your offspring will not be plants of any sort. Or dogs of any sort. Or birds of any sort. Working backwards we only see a slow change where one parent is always the same "kind" as the offspring.” ))

I much appreciated the description. It was a very succinct overview of what the evolution idea entails. And I want to say that it is an effort to appeal to logic and common sense, which I like!

However, what I read in your summary is not so much reasons for accepting evolution, but rather it’s only an overview of what evolution claims.

Yes, you broke it down (man, ape, primate, mammal, etc.), and I’ll supppse that each individual step in the progression seems to appeal to reason in your mind. But in total, it ceases to become evidence for evolution - - it becomes the claim itself. It’s as if you’re trying to convince me that evolution is true simply by telling me that evolution is true!

Yes, I acknowledge common traits in all living things (right down to the cell), but that recognition does not necessitate common ancestry - - unless I grasp a world view which pushes it.

The summary regarding change in kind was a good one. What it goes to show that the oft heard creationist response "show me a change in kind" stems from either ignorance or deliberate distortions.

In the beginning it's easier to show the reasons and evidence for believing why, say, scientists believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs or, why they believe that whales evolved from land mammals than go all out and go for tackling the argument why they currently believe all life evolved from a single ancestral community of micro-organisms. The latter requires good prior knowledge of genetics, proteomics, biochemistry etc. as well as statistical inference testing on large bodies of data. Not easy to grasp first up.

 

[SomeRandom]

You may choose to call it fear which keeps the creationist from attempting to form their testable hypotheses, but it’s not really that at all. It’s really more to do with the fact that matters regarding the origins of things cannot be tested in that way, using the scientific method. Same is true for the evolutionist. He can test to a degree for small changes and adaptation, but beyond that it’s conjecture.

And as you accurately noted, evolution is a theory right along with creation. In the end, it’s a matter of faith for both of us.

Not to be morbid, or to get too philosophical, but someday my heart will give out. And if I was wrong all along - - well, I suppose that at that point I will not be any the wiser anyway. And someday your heart gives out too. And should it turn out that you were wrong all along, it would appear that you’ll be aware of it. Anyway, I guess we both can draw opinions on which picture is the more enviable.

Evolution is the process not the origin. That's an entirely seperate subject of research.
Evolution is a scientific theory. At best Creation is a hypothesis. Just because both use the same word does not make them equivalent. Many words have multiple definitions. Even in a flowery language like English.
A theory when referring to scientific inquiry is as close to fact as possible. It does not mean a mere hunch like in Layman/vulgar English.

Also it's not some dichotomy. You can be religious and still accept the facts of evolution. I doubt a God would care either way. And if Creationists don't test their hypothesis it's at best a show of intellectual cowardice. At least so called "evolutionist" actually look at evidence. And the scientific method iirc is hypothesis, test evidence then conclusion. I don't know of any scientist who uses evidence specifically to prove anything. They merely follow it and if it fits in with previous predictions then it's usually a good sign it fits the conclusion.
Granted I am a layman. But I fail to see what's so illogical about evolution. Merely popping things into existence when they constantly have to adapt to the environment anyway is kind of illogical to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks again for your notes. As odd as this might sound, I’m not really asking/demanding evidence such as is typically available. I’ve found it more intriguing to focus on elements of reason and logic.

You may choose to call it fear which keeps the creationist from attempting to form their testable hypotheses, but it’s not really that at all. It’s really more to do with the fact that matters regarding the origins of things cannot be tested in that way, using the scientific method. Same is true for the evolutionist. He can test to a degree for small changes and adaptation, but beyond that it’s conjecture.

And as you accurately noted, evolution is a theory right along with creation. In the end, it’s a matter of faith for both of us.

Not to be morbid, or to get too philosophical, but someday my heart will give out. And if I was wrong all along - - well, I suppose that at that point I will not be any the wiser anyway. And someday your heart gives out too. And should it turn out that you were wrong all along, it would appear that you’ll be aware of it. Anyway, I guess we both can draw opinions on which picture is the more enviable.

That is simply not true. Just because you do not know how to properly test a theory does not mean that others do not. And please don't use smearing terms such as "conjecture" when you cannot support that claim. Technically when a person says things about another person that he cannot support that is "Bearing false witness". Bearing false witness is not limited to lying.

But you seem to be willing to learn. There are many ways that evolution can be tested and also many ways that it is confirmed. For example as we learn more and more about genetics specific predictions can be made. If these predictions are not true then the theory is in trouble. One example that supports the theory of evolution are endogenous retroviruses. A retrovirus is a disease where the virus takes over a cell. Very very rarely they may enter the germ cell of an organism and instead of producing more viruses is an become part of the genome:

Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia

These viruses are very noticeable to experts. If we are the product of evolution we should share most of the same ERV's that chimps have (both chimps and humans picked up a few more after the split). And the same ERV's are found in the same spots of both species. Creationists have no real explanation for this. It is only one of the many slam dunks for the theory of evolution:

ERVs

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks again for your notes. As odd as this might sound, I’m not really asking/demanding evidence such as is typically available. I’ve found it more intriguing to focus on elements of reason and logic.

You may choose to call it fear which keeps the creationist from attempting to form their testable hypotheses, but it’s not really that at all. It’s really more to do with the fact that matters regarding the origins of things cannot be tested in that way, using the scientific method. Same is true for the evolutionist. He can test to a degree for small changes and adaptation, but beyond that it’s conjecture.

But that's not true. Scientists regularly make testable predictions about modern morphology based on frameworks derived from evolutionary predictions. Not only that, but archaeologists and geologists can predict the exact location of specific transitional organisms in the fossil record. And the discovery of endogenous retroviral inserts and human chromosome 2 renders common ancestry all but a certainty. These things are testable.

And as you accurately noted, evolution is a theory right along with creation. In the end, it’s a matter of faith for both of us.

False. Evolution is a scientific theory that has withstood the rigors of hundreds of years of academic testing and been formulated and designed - based on the evidence that arises - by millions of scientists. It is accepted because it matches the facts. Creationism is not a scientific theory. It has zero scientific verifiability and cannot be tested. It is, at best, a flimsy hypothesis that has zero support. Saying that evolution and creationism belong is the same category is like saying astrology and astronomy are basically the same thing.

Not to be morbid, or to get too philosophical, but someday my heart will give out. And if I was wrong all along - - well, I suppose that at that point I will not be any the wiser anyway. And someday your heart gives out too. And should it turn out that you were wrong all along, it would appear that you’ll be aware of it. Anyway, I guess we both can draw opinions on which picture is the more enviable.

Are you seriously using Pascal's wager? Do you not understand how incredibly flawed that argument is?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The ToE is a scientific Theory(capital "T). It must be supported consistently with facts and evidence. It must be tested and retested for consistency. If it fails once, the Theory is abandoned. If a modern day rabbit is discovered buried next to a T-Rex fossil., the Theory would be abandoned. If the same alleles coding for blue eyes in man, coded for a different color in a bird, the Theory would be abandoned. If physical, chemical, and physiological similarities did not exist between all species, the Theory would be abandoned. If no intermediary species were discovered, the Theory would be abandoned. If vestigial organs did not exist, bye-bye Theory. These things have never happened, and are consistent with the Theory. So simply dismissing the Theory because it is not perfect, is no justification to fill the Gap with "God did it all, and it is just beyond our understanding".

However, the creation theory(little "t") is totally based on Belief. And, it's evidence is faith, testimonials, and fallacies. Since creationist never provide creation-specific evidence, they must rely on inferences, smears, or casting aspersions on well-established non-spiritual ideas. They safely hide behind the knowledge that any supernatural claim can never be proven or disproven. They will always claim that since you can never be 100% certain about your view, then they can never be 100% wrong about their view. This of course, is a text book fallacy. Acquiring a fundamental scientific understanding on the nature of reality is certainly harder, than the simple understanding of a static make-believe fantasy.

It is this level of intellectual insecurity, pride, dishonesty and incredulity, that is the basic foundation of Creationism. They are just not interested in seeking the truth. They are only interested in seeking their own truth. Don

 

[Jose Fly]

This is a clear reminder to me that I stand as the obvious underdog with so much evolutionary material at instant disposal.

Well that brings up an obvious issue....if it's as you believe and evolution is merely something scientists impose on the data without justification, it must have been going on across the world for at least 100 years among countless scientists from all sorts of backgrounds.

What do you chalk that up to? Conspiracy? Massive incompetence? Mass delusion?

Using the first example (finch), this is an account of observed change within the specific animal.

I'm sorry, but "within the specific animal" doesn't mean anything.

But it’s not showing observed change from its supposed previous ancestor.

Um....did you read the paper? It is most certainly different than its parental species.

I take it this is where I need to depend on various circumstantial evidence from the fossil record, trust that time and slow gradual change made it happen.

To be completely honest with you, it's looking to me like you're right in line with most other creationists I've interacted with. And by that I mean, when presented with scientific data you just go into what I call "denial mode" where you post vague "No it isn't" type responses, rather than directly addressing the information in an informed, detailed manner that shows you both read and understood it.

At this point, I suggest you go back and read the material again and make a genuine effort to understand it, rather than just skim it and come back with little more than "Nuh uh".

 

[Crossboard]

Well that brings up an obvious issue....if it's as you believe and evolution is merely something scientists impose on the data without justification, it must have been going on across the world for at least 100 years among countless scientists from all sorts of backgrounds.

What do you chalk that up to? Conspiracy? Massive incompetence? Mass delusion?


I'm sorry, but "within the specific animal" doesn't mean anything.


Um....did you read the paper? It is most certainly different than its parental species.


To be completely honest with you, it's looking to me like you're right in line with most other creationists I've interacted with. And by that I mean, when presented with scientific data you just go into what I call "denial mode" where you post vague "No it isn't" type responses, rather than directly addressing the information in an informed, detailed manner that shows you both read and understood it.

At this point, I suggest you go back and read the material again and make a genuine effort to understand it, rather than just skim it and come back with little more than "Nuh uh".

Jose, I want to thank you for your generous time. Much appreciated! Everything you have contributed has been pretty much what I’m looking for.

A general question, if you happen to have an opinion... What would you say is your primary drive in swaying any creationist over to the evolutionary world view? As eager as you evidently are (and I do admire it to observe it), is there any motive deeper than just seeing someone adhere to the evolutionary data?

I’ll wind it down with you, and if you’d like final word on this or anything else, please feel free.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, I want to thank you for your generous time. Much appreciated! Everything you have contributed has been pretty much what I’m looking for.

You're welcome, but to be honest, I'm rather disappointed that you seem to be finishing up here.

A general question, if you happen to have an opinion... What would you say is your primary drive in swaying any creationist over to the evolutionary world view? As eager as you evidently are (and I do admire it to observe it), is there any motive deeper than just seeing someone adhere to the evolutionary data?

I have no intention of swaying anyone, nor do I harbor any illusions about changing the minds of creationists. My primary reason for participating in these discussions is my interest in human behavior, specifically the behaviors associated with denialism.

This thread and your posts are a good example. Like most creationists I've interacted with, you seem to be quite comfortable in throwing around accusations against people even though you've never read their work or met them. And to be clear, saying that scientists are imposing an unjustified viewpoint onto the data is a very, very serious accusation of professional misconduct. So one would think anyone who makes such an accusation would feel obligated to back it up with some actual substance. But you seem to feel no such moral obligation. Apparently you believe merely making the accusation is sufficient.

Then there's the flat-out ignoring and waving away of inconvenient information. Three separate times I posted or referred to the basic logical case for why paleontologists interpret their finds through an evolutionary framework, and you completely ignored it every single time. Then when I posted examples of observed and documented speciation events at your request, you ignored all of them but one, and waved that one away with an incorrect assertion (they're the same as their parents) and an excuse that was so vague, it was meaningless (they're "within the specific animal").

That's what keeps me coming back. I'm fascinated by this behavior and trying to comprehend how any rational person can engage in it. I mean...do you even realize what you're doing? Or are you so emotionally wedded to your belief system and its required denial of science that you don't even recognize your own behaviors?

I’ll wind it down with you, and if you’d like final word on this or anything else, please feel free.

Thanks for your time.