If Evolution is Not True...

[Guy Threepwood]

If science actually pointed away from evolution, the rational thing to do would be to give up on evolution. Sadly for the evolution deniers, this simply isn't the case; and your tired old preaching that has not changed in the last several years I've popped in and out of here is a comfortable fantasy for you. But for the sake of argument, if evolution is proved to be untrue, the rational thing to do would be to dismiss it, just as we dismissed aether.

On the other hand, we are quite agreed in that we need not give up lack of belief in deities were evolution found to be true; because it does not stand to reason that if evolution is not true, then "God did it".

We didn't have to give up on classical physics altogether, apples still fall from trees, it still works great for practicing your golf swing.

Likewise- the practical parts still work- animals can still make use of variation in beak size, hair length etc- the things we can actually scientifically observe without speculative extrapolation

But we did finally concede, as painful as it was for many, that it was a fundamentally inadequate explanation for all physical reality.


Darwinian evolution was conceived 150 years ago, around the peak of the Victorian/classical model of reality. It was a perfectly intuitive, rationale, elegant extension of classical physics - whereby a handful of simple 'immutable' laws, given enough time and space to randomly bump around in, would produce all the wonders around us eventually, with delightfully satisfying implications for those of a materialistic bent

The concept of hidden instructions guiding and predetermining specific outcomes in physics was still considered religious pseudoscience back then. But getting past this ideology opened up a vast world of new scientific possibilities, and it can and WILL for life, medicine, also.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The concept of hidden instructions guiding and predetermining specific outcomes in physics was still considered religious pseudoscience back then. But getting past this ideology opened up a vast world of new scientific possibilities, and it can and WILL for life, medicine, also.

How utterly extraordinary, since the sciences that presently deal with life and medicine both depend upon what evolution (the theory as it is) teaches. To suppose that there are magical "god-rules" makes it incontrovertible that to try and correct mistakes that lead to illness, deformity and death is a direct attempt to thwart the intention behind those rules.

 

[DavidFirth]

The article said: "The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. "It's near the direct ancestor," Solounias said. "But the direct ancestor has not been found yet."

If you knew anything at all about paleontology and evolution you'd realize that no fossil is a "direct" ancestor of an extant species, they are all marginally off the direct path and "near the direct ancestor" is actually about the best that may be expected. Evolution is a bush, no a ladder.

I'm not very bright but evolution over millions of years seems a very indirect science to me. It's not like we can go back a million years and see for sure.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So we have no evidence of this gradual process of the Giraffe's neck becoming progressively longer by natural selection.

It is interesting that while the evolution deniers keep parroting this, the evolution deniers fail to find the fossilized remains of the modern giraffe that dates back millions of years; nor can they find a living example of this distant ancestor. But of course the answer there is simple too: "Dating methods are wrong"; Right? Sheesh. This is called "Law of Infinite Permutations"; No matter how much evidence is presented, one can always find a "But" in there (real or imagined) to keep the argument progressively flowing. In this case, it is best to remember Occum's Razor: The widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one"

We didn't have to give up on classical physics altogether, apples still fall from trees, it still works great for practicing your golf swing.

So I guess that classical physics, which you consistently refer to with derision, weren't wrong ... they were just incomplete, right? See how the scientific method works? Excellent, wouldn't you say?

Darwinian evolution was conceived 150 years ago, around the peak of the Victorian/classical model of reality.

Yep, 150 years ago, and it is still standing strong with more and more evidence pointing to its credibility: Even such sciences that did not exist 150 years ago, like genetics and molecular biology, all point to evolution! Isn't that cool!

 

[Sapiens]

Try again. According to
Paleobiology Database

first appearance of
Giraffa jumae
11.61 to 5.33 million years ago

first appearance of
Samotherium boissieri (major)
23.03 to 11.62 million years ago

They are not contemporaries, but while neither are direct ancestors, they are both representative of Giraffe evolution.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not very bright but evolution over millions of years seems a very indirect science to me. It's not like we can go back a million years and see for sure.

It is not that hard, nor that esoteric. A university level course in comparative anatomy, embryology and evolution will help the scales to fall from your eyes.

 

[DavidFirth]

It is not that hard, nor that esoteric. A university level course in comparative anatomy, embryology and evolution will help the scales to fall from your eyes.

Well, it's all just speculation, really. We have no hard proof, only evidence that can be interpreted different ways.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not very bright but evolution over millions of years seems a very indirect science to me. It's not like we can go back a million years and see for sure.

Yes, we cannot measure, observe, repeat any experiment that shows a single cell morphing into a human being by millions of lucky mutations. It's an inherently speculative theory

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Try again. According to
Paleobiology Database

first appearance of
Giraffa jumae
11.61 to 5.33 million years ago

first appearance of
Samotherium boissieri (major)
23.03 to 11.62 million years ago

They are not contemporaries, but while neither are direct ancestors, they are both representative of Giraffe evolution.

Sapiens, Jumae predates the 7 million yo fossil of the S major you linked to-

No gradual neck lengthening in this record, no way around that

It is interesting that while the evolution deniers keep parroting this, the evolution deniers fail to find the fossilized remains of the modern giraffe that dates back millions of years; nor can they find a living example of this distant ancestor. But of course the answer there is simple too: "Dating methods are wrong"; Right? Sheesh. This is called "Law of Infinite Permutations"; No matter how much evidence is presented, one can always find a "But" in there (real or imagined) to keep the argument progressively flowing. In this case, it is best to remember Occum's Razor: The widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one"

As above, the oldest Giraffe ancestor has a neck that is at least as long as a modern Giraffe.

I am happy to accept the scientific evidence as is; gaps, sudden appearances, the strict limitations on adaptation- I have no need for endless artistic impressions of intermediates predicted 150 years ago, or excuses for why they were never found

So I guess that classical physics, which you consistently refer to with derision, weren't wrong ... they were just incomplete, right? See how the scientific method works? Excellent, wouldn't you say?

right, we learned that finely tuned plans were required to guide physics, not random luck, and science is discovering this for life also.

Science v atheism once again

 

[Polymath257]

Sapiens, Jumae predates the 7 million yo fossil of the S major you linked to-

No gradual neck lengthening in this record, no way around that

A recent article:
Elongation of the giraffe neck | Open Science

Your date for G. jumae seems to be problematic:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00359190309519935

So, no, G. jumae does NOT predate S. major.

 

[Sapiens]

A recent article:
Elongation of the giraffe neck | Open Science

Your date for G. jumae seems to be problematic:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00359190309519935

So, no, G. jumae does NOT predate S. major.

Only in his dreams, only in his dreams. It is amazing how far people are willing to push their ignorance and when caught, even then they cling to the lie ... sounds like religion, no?

 

[ChristineM]

Well, of course you have misinterpreted the entire notion of creationism and intelligent design. It is perfectly obvious that the polio and smallpox viruses belong to virus-kind and can thus change in response to environmental and biological circumstances - such as undoubtedly arose in the Garden of Eden about 6000 or so years ago shortly after God created them all. As a result of one man's disobedience, the entire world was subjected to the influence of a talking snake called Satan. Human-kind began to die before they had even reached a thousand years of age, virus-kind morphed into a death-dealing parody of it's Creator's original intent and amoeba-kind and revolting-parasite-kind took on an ugly appearance that was never meant to be by the Creator. The arch-enemy, Satan then set about deliberately digging holes all over the planet in which to place the bones of long-dead things in rocks that appear to the uninformed science-believer to be much older than they really are so that men would be subjected to the ignominiously ill-informed notion that they had evolved from brute beasts. Of course, only the faithful will see through this ruse of Satanic subterfuge and deception. The entire world - not just the WHO - is indeed the enemy of the true God and if those buggers believe in evolution (and God-forbid probably climate change and any other God-defying baseless propaganda that I don't agree with) then they are part of the great Satanic conspiracy too. Ultimately they will all burn in hell, whilst I, in my Christ-like compassion, laugh my a*** off in glee at their downfall. And what is more - you cannot post a single shred of evidence to prove that what I am saying is not true. (And even if you do, I'll just pretend not to notice it and repeat the claim that you can't post it over and over until you finally give up and I claim victory).

There - stick that in your commie evolutionary pipe and smoke it!

Wow, just wow

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

right, we learned that finely tuned plans were required to guide physics, not random luck, and science is discovering this for life also.

Science v atheism once again

You're funny. Still clinging to the Teleological Argument for Christ.

 

[DavidFirth]

So, basically, I'm being asked to accept evolution from (whatever life form was supposedly first to randomly go from dead to alive) to the trillions of life forms found on Earth today?

Something just isn't right about that assumption...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

No, you are not being "asked to accept evolution". You are being asked to understand that which you are arguing against. For starters, it is not an "assumption". Next, you are (as most Creationists and evolution deniers do) conflating Abiogenesis ... the advent of life ... with Evolution ... the diversity of life. Lastly, you are assuming that my aversion to the telological argument means that evolution is true; which is not the case as evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is not based on "Well, I don't believe in creationism, so therefore, EVOLUTION!" (that's how theists think).

Evolution is a well established theory (i.e. fact; explanation on the natural world and how it works) which is cross referenced by many scientific disciplines that all point to the same conclusion:

101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com

Common Descent.

 

[Malicex]

The fact of evolution is abundantly clear at this point in the 21st century. It's really hard to be a creationist these days without being woefully ignorant or very emotionally incompatible with it.

The only scientific explanation for the fossil record is evolution. The Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian and so on, look like different worlds from each other, they have very different biospheres. For instance, birds did not exist in during the Triassic period, or any period before the Jurassic period. Humans didn't exist until recently. The ONLY alternative explanations for this are unfalsifiable explanations designed to look like evolution, such as guided evolution. Much of creationism borrows from and tries to mimic evolution (i.e. what we expect to see if evolution is true), such as "common design".

What makes the theory of evolution the most well-supported theory in science (yes, better than gravity), is that so many independent lines of evidence from different scientific disciplines come together to prove that biological evolution is responsible for what we observe today. Keep in mind, that biological evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution are not the same things. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how evolution occurs. In fact, after Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, scientists were more convinced that evolution was true than they were that natural selection was the best explanation.

Below, is a pretty good video that looks at multiple lines of evidence. There is plenty more information out there.

What is the evidence for evolution?

 

[LukeS]

Not true, corroborated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The fact of evolution is abundantly clear at this point in the 21st century. It's really hard to be a creationist these days without being woefully ignorant or very emotionally incompatible with it.

The only scientific explanation for the fossil record is evolution. The Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Permian and so on, look like different worlds from each other, they have very different biospheres. For instance, birds did not exist in during the Triassic period, or any period before the Jurassic period. Humans didn't exist until recently. The ONLY alternative explanations for this are unfalsifiable explanations designed to look like evolution, such as guided evolution. Much of creationism borrows from and tries to mimic evolution (i.e. what we expect to see if evolution is true), such as "common design".

What makes the theory of evolution the most well-supported theory in science (yes, better than gravity), is that so many independent lines of evidence from different scientific disciplines come together to prove that biological evolution is responsible for what we observe today. Keep in mind, that biological evolution and Darwin's theory of evolution are not the same things. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how evolution occurs. In fact, after Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, scientists were more convinced that evolution was true than they were that natural selection was the best explanation.

Below, is a pretty good video that looks at multiple lines of evidence. There is plenty more information out there.

What is the evidence for evolution?

It's a good point on definitions; if we merely define evolution as 'change over time' this is not inconsistent with Genesis, which also tells us about animal life beginning in the ocean, and humans appearing last.. long before this was validated scientifically

So what most people are skeptical of is not the science of evolution, but Darwinism; the philosophical speculation that all these design changes occurred by pure blind luck, all the way from a single cell to a human being. This may have been a perfectly logical extension of classical physics 150 years ago, but it hasn't held up to scientific scrutiny any better.

 

[Malicex]

It's a good point on definitions; if we merely define evolution as 'change over time' this is not inconsistent with Genesis, which also tells us about animal life beginning in the ocean, and humans appearing last.. long before this was validated scientifically

I think you're likely misunderstanding what I am stating. These were different biospheres. Humans not only came after, they never lived at the same time as millions of other creatures that no longer exist, like raptors, pteranodons, allosaurs, tyrannosaurs rex, etc.. At no time did all of these creatures exist at the same time for Adam to name.

So what most people are skeptical of is not the science of evolution, but Darwinism; the philosophical speculation that all these design changes occurred by pure blind luck, all the way from a single cell to a human being.

It has nothing to do with "blind luck", as I am sure has been pointed out to you before. The only identified mechanism of evolution that has to do with "blind luck" is genetic drift. But again, any theory trying to explain how evolution occurs is not the same as the evidence showing that evolution did occur (common ancestry).

This may have been a perfectly logical extension of classical physics 150 years ago, but it hasn't held up to scientific scrutiny any better.

Darwin's view of evolution as a tree (common ancestry) has not only held up, it has become far better supported by many lines of evidence from various fields of science. The video I posted gives a glimpse into that. The fossil record for the whale has become extremely impressive and that's just one line of evidence from one field of science (paleontology).

What do you mean by "logical extension of classical physics 150 years ago"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think you're likely misunderstanding what I am stating. These were different biospheres. Humans not only came after, they never lived at the same time as millions of other creatures that no longer exist, like raptors, pteranodons, allosaurs, tyrannosaurs rex, etc.. At no time did all of these creatures exist at the same time for Adam to name.



It has nothing to do with "blind luck",

Well we agree on that! I don't believe it was random chance either , but we would need to argue this with much of mainstream academia


(From a link given to me several times to support evolution)
Mutations

A change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation.

Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random

Darwin's view of evolution as a tree (common ancestry) has not only held up, it has become far better supported by many lines of evidence from various fields of science. The video I posted gives a glimpse into that. The fossil record for the whale has become extremely impressive and that's just one line of evidence from one field of science (paleontology).

You may be more qualified to make that assessment than Davide Raup, University of Chicago paleontologist & curator of Chicago Field Museum.

"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time"



Few things are more subjective than evidence!

it's a matter of interpretation- maybe we just see things from a different perspective

e.g. :
I get it, when we dig deeper into the past, we see similarities, shared traits, some dead ends, and regressions, but a general trend towards bigger and better yes?- more sophisticated adaptation to varying environments... but we also see some gaps, jumps, differences between the older and newer that have no intermediates that have been found..

What does all this really prove to you if anything?

What do you mean by "logical extension of classical physics 150 years ago"

The ToE was conceived within a Victorian understanding of reality, whereby a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, could account for all the functional complexity of the physical world.. Darwinism merely applies the same general mechanism where physics leaves off and life begins.

Back then, the concept of deeper hidden guiding forces, directing the physical world towards very specific ends, was still considered 'religious pseudoscience'

So I agree with the original rationale for the theory, that as an extension of the development of physical reality, we can expect life might continue according to the same general mechanism.

which we now know follows a vast array of very specific predetermined instructions, math, algorithms at the subatomic and quantum levels- stemming from the universal constants/ singularity