Question for people that believe in evolution

[MSizer]

"Where's your evidence. I haven't heard anyone present any evidence yet for evolution"

 

[footprints]

What does her input have to do with atheism? Creation has everything to do with mythology. The ToE has everything to do with science. Atheism is a separate topic altogether.

MSizer, if you do not know that a persons belief patterns will influence their judgement, then it is just another thing you do not know.

Nothing has to do with mythology, all pertains to nature. That is just your mythological belief speaking.

 

[footprints]

How about multiresistant bacterias nylon eating bacterias?

What about them Kerr?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah I know Jose, just like theists see the work of God take place all the time. It is an amazing world isn't it. People see their own truth everywhere.

??????? You're asserting that watching and documenting populations evolve is "just like the seeing the work of God"? Where exactly can I see this god at work?

I am sure you believe that it is a natural phenomena in nature. Yes the fact is due to intervention, not nature, a population into a new environment was introduced.

Are you saying that populations never experience new environments unless humans are involved?

The scientist becoming the Intelligent Designer.

Nope, we simply took a population and put it into a different environment and literally sat back and watched what took place.

The resultant conclusion it changed. In other words the change was documented, not its evolution, albeit the term evolution could be used as "in changed state," it does not offer proof for evolution as in any theory. However a very subjective mind, would and could only see it this way.

In biology, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. We directly observed the allele frequencies in a population of E. coli change over time. We directly observed evolution, your empty assertions aside.

 

[footprints]

Yeah, I suppose you're right, I guess he'll see right through nonsense like this:



My apologies for underestimating you FTV.

Yes I am sure FTV will see through your efforts of trying to tell them how to think and what to think.

 

[Kerr]

What about them Kerr?

They are both examples of evolution.

 

[Tristesse]

MSizer, if you do not know that a persons belief patterns will influence their judgement, then it is just another thing you do not know.

Nothing has to do with mythology, all pertains to nature. That is just your mythological belief speaking.

This is true, but, how do you explain the many religious people who accept evolution. Including pope john paul the second? beliefs do inform your judgement to a certain degree, but when there is overwhelming evidence for proposition, than the only verdict to rule is guilty. It works in a court of law, why than shouldn't we apply it to reality?

 

[Vile Atheist]

This is true, but, how do you explain the many religious people who accept evolution. Including pope john paul the second? beliefs do inform your judgement to a certain degree, but when there is overwhelming evidence for proposition, than the only verdict to rule is guilty. It works in a court of law, why than shouldn't we apply it to reality?

Because it conflicts with my religious beliefs.

 

[MSizer]

MSizer, if you do not know that a persons belief patterns will influence their judgement, then it is just another thing you do not know.

Actually I do know that. There's a whopping amount of literature on the subject. Are you trying to use that fact as evidence for a connection between Auto's atheism and her espousal of the ToE? Or have I misunderstood your point completely?

Nothing has to do with mythology.

+

That is just your mythological belief speaking.

= division by 0.

 

[Perfect Circle]

MSizer, if you do not know that a persons belief patterns will influence their judgement, then it is just another thing you do not know.

That's a zinger of a one line...

Nothing has to do with mythology, all pertains to nature. That is just your mythological belief speaking.

Wait... Are you saying that MSizer has a mythological world view?

 

[Autodidact]

 

[Alceste]

Yeah I know Jose, just like theists see the work of God take place all the time. It is an amazing world isn't it. People see their own truth everywhere.

I am sure you believe that it is a natural phenomena in nature. Yes the fact is due to intervention, not nature, a population into a new environment was introduced. The scientist becoming the Intelligent Designer. The resultant conclusion it changed. In other words the change was documented, not its evolution, albeit the term evolution could be used as "in changed state," it does not offer proof for evolution as in any theory. However a very subjective mind, would and could only see it this way.

Actually, evolution has been observed inside and outside a laboratory environment, with and without human intervention.

For example, Richard Lenski and his students isolated 12 cultures of e coli in identical environments and left them to develop without intervention, except to sample each successive generation of e coli to observe the ongoing changes. Each strain developed in as predicted to make better use of the energy resources available in the beaker environment, but they (mostly) used different genetic mutations to do so.

John Endler observed the evolution of Trinidadian guppies in both controlled (read: lab) and natural environments.

It's OK to say that you look at these experiments and see the hand of God manipulating the destiny of each individual e coli cell and fishy (in some abstract philosophical way), but it is not OK to look at these experiments and say you don't see incontrovertible evidence of evolution by random mutation and non-random natural selection also, or that evolution by random mutation and non-random natural selection is a "subjective" conclusion.

It's also not OK to say these experiments never occurred, as creationists are wont to do.

There is a difference between maintaining a gut feeling the entire process is somehow directed by your god and denying the process is occurring at all, or insisting that your god is required for evolution to occur when that does not appear to be the case.

 

[Alceste]

Yes I am sure FTV will see through your efforts of trying to tell them how to think and what to think.

Actually, if you take the blinders off and look again, you will see that FTV asked why we find ToE convincing, and we provided a pretty sizeable amount of research and literature for him to peruse at his convenience and draw his own conclusions.

(Yes, we really are that confident that the evidence for the ToE speaks for itself.)

 

[JeLy]

Whoops... thought I was responding to the last page. Silly me.

 

[footprints]

??????? You're asserting that watching and documenting populations evolve is "just like the seeing the work of God"? Where exactly can I see this god at work?

I assert that watching and documenting populations change, suggests (this doesn't mean proves) the probability of evolution. However, as it is done in a lab, not in nature, I further assert it didn't occur naturally as in nature, but was forced.

Are you saying that populations never experience new environments unless humans are involved?

No I am not saying that, nor did I say that, I even went to great lengths to say that it could simulate nature.

Nope, we simply took a population and put it into a different environment and literally sat back and watched what took place.

Yes Jose, this is what proponents of ID say as well pertaining to a deity. The deity intervened in nature just as the scientists who moved the population.

In biology, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. We directly observed the allele frequencies in a population of E. coli change over time. We directly observed evolution, your empty assertions aside.

Your subjective assertions aside, biology isn't the only field of science studing evolution. And the rate of change observed in E. coli when the status quo of the enviornment is maintained is?

 

[footprints]

They are both examples of evolution.

I will accept the fact that they are both examples which could suggest evolution a fact.

 

[footprints]

This is true, but, how do you explain the many religious people who accept evolution. Including pope john paul the second? beliefs do inform your judgement to a certain degree, but when there is overwhelming evidence for proposition, than the only verdict to rule is guilty. It works in a court of law, why than shouldn't we apply it to reality?

Having no scientific evaluation available to me on this point, I cannot speak on reference to probability, only to my own personal perception. That the people still believe in a deity, I would suggest their belief pattern has not changed, science has just given them rational and logical reason to believe the way they do. As it stands at this present point in time, evolution still has probability of being a design by god or as other religious people suggest god is nature and only cements their belief.

Reality is everywhere, albeit people will draw different realities from it. Many different realities carry probability, albeit many will believe their own reality is the one and only singularity.

 

[footprints]

Actually I do know that. There's a whopping amount of literature on the subject. Are you trying to use that fact as evidence for a connection between Auto's atheism and her espousal of the ToE? Or have I misunderstood your point completely?

+ = division by 0.

Yes there is a whopping amount of literature on the subject, albiet you wouldn't believe so with so many people ignorant of it.

The point being, it has nothing to do with Auto's espousal of the theory of evolution. It has everything to do with Auto's subjectiveness on the matter, and Auto trying to move this theory from the theory position to a position of undeniable fact. It is further enhanced in Auto's lack of ability in being able to differentiate between facts /evidence and the power of suggestion offered by the offered fact/evidence, or in other words, power of suggestion becomes a fact to Auto.

Yes I can only say again there is a lot of literature on this subject.

 

[footprints]

That's a zinger of a one line...



Wait... Are you saying that MSizer has a mythological world view?

Where anything other than his/her own personal belief is concerned, Yes.

 

[footprints]

Actually, evolution has been observed inside and outside a laboratory environment, with and without human intervention.

For example, Richard Lenski and his students isolated 12 cultures of e coli in identical environments and left them to develop without intervention, except to sample each successive generation of e coli to observe the ongoing changes. Each strain developed in as predicted to make better use of the energy resources available in the beaker environment, but they (mostly) used different genetic mutations to do so.

John Endler observed the evolution of Trinidadian guppies in both controlled (read: lab) and natural environments.

It's OK to say that you look at these experiments and see the hand of God manipulating the destiny of each individual e coli cell and fishy (in some abstract philosophical way), but it is not OK to look at these experiments and say you don't see incontrovertible evidence of evolution by random mutation and non-random natural selection also, or that evolution by random mutation and non-random natural selection is a "subjective" conclusion.

It's also not OK to say these experiments never occurred, as creationists are wont to do.

There is a difference between maintaining a gut feeling the entire process is somehow directed by your god and denying the process is occurring at all, or insisting that your god is required for evolution to occur when that does not appear to be the case.

Alceste, just for your information, I do not see the hand of god in anything. I base my assumptions purely on facts and evidence which may or may not support any known theory or hypothesis.

Pertaining to the Lenski example, you will get no doubt from me that it could suggest evolution. As Lenski et al, handled the e.coli then there was intervention in the natual cycle. The e.coli were not identical to begin with, and there is no fact of evidence as to why some populations could utilize citrate as a source of energy. The implied suggestion is that it is evolution.

It is okay to say you look at these experiments and see only the implied suggestion. But it is not okay to try and imply a theory is a fact.