Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

[Polymath257]

Yes this must obviously be true, if one thinks about it.

The tricky bit is how one gets a replicating system in the first place. So it's the abiogenesis bit, not the natural selection bit.

Exactly. Having enough genetics to allow for replication and mutation is the biggest part of the problem.

 

[We Never Know]

In fact, were creation/design true, there would be no fuzziness at all, since each 'kind' would be a clear-cut and discreet 'creation.'
Cute how creationists argue against themselves so often and do not even seem to recognize this.

Why does everyone jump to "if creation this or that"?

I don't believe in gods let alone creation. I simply made a statement along the lines that we used to think different species couldn't inter-breed, we now know better, still don't know it all and still have much to learn.

 

[ecco]

Spot on.

Sickens me when Olympic athletes, having trained and put their lives on hold for years or even decades, all for that chance to win at the Olympics. And when they do, they..... thank Jesus. When I see that, I see a person that hates him or herself. That is really what goes through my head. They hate themselves so much that they can only have achieved what they did because Jesus did it for them.

Our local professional football team had a very religious placekicker. Crossings, Hand to God, before and after every kick.

He was amazing for several years. Then he started missing. A rational person would have gone to his coaches to figure out what was happening. Not our guy. He must have felt God abandoned him. He completely lost all his confidence. He was not around the following year. He drifted around the NFL for a few more years but couldn't keep a job.

 

[tas8831]

Our local professional football team had a very religious placekicker. Crossings, Hand to God, before and after every kick.

He was amazing for several years. Then he started missing. A rational person would have gone to his coaches to figure out what was happening. Not our guy. He must have felt God abandoned him. He completely lost all his confidence. He was not around the following year. He drifted around the NFL for a few more years but couldn't keep a job.

Sad how religion destroys people. Its OWN people.

 

[nPeace]

The scientific method is all about ifs, buts and maybes. There are no proofs in science, only evidence, either for or against a hypothesis or theory.

So sure, I do not know that "this" (not entirely sure what you are referring to here) works. But the hypothesis of evolution is borne out by the evidence we have. Importantly, the evolutionary hypothesis also make successful predictions about what we may expect to find in future. So it is far from a case of just "interpreting" data to make it fit. We actually predict new data and then go and look for it - and find it. For example evolution predicts transitional fossils between forms and the age range of the rocks in which they might be found. And we find them.

Thus evolution predicted feathers on dinosaurs: Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
And Bingo! we found them. We can see, from archaeopteryx etc, the transitional forms from dinosaurs to birds. So it makes immediate sense that we now find feathers on dinosaurs that are not birds as well.

And of course we now have new corroborations of kinship from DNA comparisons as well, which were not available at all in Darwin's day. This gives us another, quite independent, means of corroborating the theory.

So it will not do to pretend that the findings are all massaged to fit the model. There is far too much and it is far, far too consistent

Are you getting mixed up between hypotheses and theories, and the scientific method?
Show me how the scientific method is all about ifs, buts, and maybes, please.

 

[nPeace]

Well, it must be what you believe if you don't believe the geological column and fossils support common descent.

I lost track of this conversation, so I don't remember what you accused me of, but whatever the case, I don't really care what opinion you have of people who don't agree with what you believe.
If you accept interpretations just because they suit you, that's fine by me, and those you label.
I'm sure we can all find labels for each other.

However, looking at the geological column one can see it does not support common descent. That is why adjustments have to be made to the theory to fit the evidence seen.
The updated drawings, and charts, like the evolutionary tree, are simply a mess of conjecture.

Even the propositions about close relationships base on chromosomes has proven to be a morass.
From a tangled bush to a muddy trench, the evolution theory seems to me, like a place, no one should want to be

 

[nPeace]

You are not using the word "assume" consistently. When scientists say "assume" they do not use it in the same way that you are. This is an equivocation fallacy. When scientist "assume" something it is based upon prior work that is supported by evidence. You are trying to say that they assume based upon nothing and that is not the case. "Assume" is often used as shorthand for "this idea has been supported by endless writers and I am not going to list them all right now" when scientists use the term.

No, I am not trying to say what you claim.
An assumption is an assumption, no matter how one looks at it.
You are the one who was denying that they assume. I was showing you that they do.

It is a fact therefore, that what is often thought to be evidence in support of an idea, can be quite wrong, and often is. Are you also in disagreement with this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not trying to say what you claim.
An assumption is an assumption, no matter how one looks at it.
You are the one who was denying that they assume. I was showing you that they do.

It is a fact therefore, that what is often thought to be evidence in support of an idea, can be quite wrong, and often is. Are you also in disagreement with this?

First things first, you have been using the word "assume" inconsistently. Or you have been lying. I prefer to believe the former.

And yes, it is possible for evidence to be misinterpreted, but then one must consider the volume of evidence. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the present scientific paradigm. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. To claim that scientists are assuming in the derogatory way that you use the word is incorrect.

 

[exchemist]

Are you getting mixed up between hypotheses and theories, and the scientific method?
Show me how the scientific method is all about ifs, buts, and maybes, please.

Oh that's easy enough. The method goes something like this (though not necessarily in this particular order): You make observations, you conjecture a hypothesis to account for them, you test the hypothesis by looking to see if predictions it makes are fulfilled by further observations and, if it does this correctly, you develop it as a theory.

But you have to remain open to new observations, perhaps of a different class, not fitting this theory. The history of science shows this happens all the time*. So you will never find science claims any theory is "proved" : such a thing is logically impossible, since we cannot foretell what new things we may find in future. All theories thus must be taken as "provisional" and only as models of reality, rather than being definitively reality itself.

So what you find in reports of scientific research is cautious terminology such as "these observations (or results) are consistent with" such an such an explanation. And there may be competing explanations for the data, which the results are not fully able to resolve, in which case there may be an argument for and against the alternatives. This is very common.

So indeed, it is all ifs, buts and maybes, rather than categorical "truths".

*Classic examples would the discovery that Newtonian mechanics breaks down when there is relative motion at significant fractions of the speed of light, and that it does not account for behaviour of matter at the atomic scale (due to the wavelike behaviour of atomic-scale entities, which is nowadays modelled by quantum theory).

In my own discipline it is not unusual to have two different models for the same thing, e.g. the molecular-orbital and valence-bond descriptions of chemical bonding, which we use according to the problem at hand, well aware that neither can be said to be the definitive description. In fact, problems in chemistry are too complex to model exactly: we resort to approximations all the time and need to be aware of the limitations of these (e.g. in chemical bonding and spectroscopy, the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation.) Ifs, buts, and maybes, all over the place.

 

[nPeace]

First things first, you have been using the word "assume" inconsistently. Or you have been lying. I prefer to believe the former.

And yes, it is possible for evidence to be misinterpreted, but then one must consider the volume of evidence. There are literally mountains of scientific evidence that support the present scientific paradigm. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. To claim that scientists are assuming in the derogatory way that you use the word is incorrect.

Okay, I will use an example, and you tell me...
1. Is it based on science?
2. Is it based on experimental observation?
3. Are assumptions not made, regarding these?

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?

 

[nPeace]

Oh that's easy enough. The method goes something like this (though not necessarily in this particular order): You make observations, you conjecture a hypothesis to account for them, you test the hypothesis by looking to see if predictions it makes are fulfilled by further observations and, if it does this correctly, you develop it as a theory.

But you have to remain open to new observations, perhaps of a different class, not fitting this theory. The history of science shows this happens all the time*. So you will never find science claims any theory is "proved" : such a thing is logically impossible, since we cannot foretell what new things we may find in future. All theories thus must be taken as "provisional" and only as models of reality, rather than being definitively reality itself.

So what you find in reports of scientific research is cautious terminology such as "these observations (or results) are consistent with" such an such an explanation. And there may be competing explanations for the data, which the results are not fully able to resolve, in which case there may be an argument for and against the alternatives. This is very common.

So indeed, it is all ifs, buts and maybes, rather than categorical "truths".

*Classic examples would the discovery that Newtonian mechanics breaks down when there is relative motion at significant fractions of the speed of light, and that it does not account for behaviour of matter at the atomic scale (due to the wavelike behaviour of atomic-scale entities, which is nowadays modelled by quantum theory).

In my own discipline it is not unusual to have two different models for the same thing, e.g. the molecular-orbital and valence-bond descriptions of chemical bonding, which we use according to the problem at hand, well aware that neither can be said to be the definitive description. In fact, problems in chemistry are too complex to model exactly: we resort to approximations all the time and need to be aware of the limitations of these (e.g. in chemical bonding and spectroscopy, the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation.) Ifs, buts, and maybes, all over the place.

So, basically then, in other words, the scientific method itself is a religious approach... in more ways than one? I can agree with that.

I don't want to be 'putting words in your mouth'.
If I understand you to be saying that the results - what is observed, maybe... may be, a wrongly concluded interpretation.
Is that what you mean, by the scientific method being all about, maybes, for one thing.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, I will use an example, and you tell me...
1. Is it based on science?
2. Is it based on experimental observation?
3. Are assumptions not made, regarding these?

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?

What's all this about "experiments"? Nothing in science says you have to do "experiments". It's a typical creationist notion.

What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.

 

[exchemist]

So, basically then, in other words, the scientific method itself is a religious approach... in more ways than one? I can agree with that.

I don't want to be 'putting words in your mouth'.
If I understand you to be saying that the results - what is observed, maybe... may be, a wrongly concluded interpretation.
Is that what you mean, by the scientific method being all about, maybes, for one thing.

How do you conclude that it is a religious approach, when I have explained to you it is all about observation of nature, an activity that plays no part at all in religion?

I'm afraid I think you are just being deliberately obtuse now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I will use an example, and you tell me...
1. Is it based on science?
2. Is it based on experimental observation?
3. Are assumptions not made, regarding these?

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia
Additionally, what experiments show that male's nipples are useless?

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. You need to define what you mean by "assumptions". If you mean do they assume that concepts previously demonstrated to be correct are still correct then yes. That is the sort of "assumptions" that a scientist can make. If you mean in the sense that creationists usually use the term, then, no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's all this about "experiments"? Nothing in science says you have to do "experiments". It's a typical creationist notion.

What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.

He did at least use the term "experimental observation". And in science the term experiment can have different meanings. In astronomy "experiments" are done by observing with various telescopes. In paleontology it is done by finding fossils. Each new fossil found could conceivably refute the theory of evolution if it was found to be reliably seriously out of order. The notorious and not yet found Precambrian Bunny Rabbit for example. I do nit pick and what he means by "assumption" since creationists and scientists tend to use different definitions of the word. In science if one drops a rock 100 times and it accelerates downward one can "assume" that it will do so if dropped a 101st time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I lost track of this conversation, so I don't remember what you accused me of, but whatever the case, I don't really care what opinion you have of people who don't agree with what you believe.
If you accept interpretations just because they suit you, that's fine by me, and those you label.
I'm sure we can all find labels for each other.

However, looking at the geological column one can see it does not support common descent. That is why adjustments have to be made to the theory to fit the evidence seen.
The updated drawings, and charts, like the evolutionary tree, are simply a mess of conjecture.

Even the propositions about close relationships base on chromosomes has proven to be a morass.
From a tangled bush to a muddy trench, the evolution theory seems to me, like a place, no one should want to be

Once again, do you believe that species just pop into existence, fully formed from nowhere, that just so happen to look a lot like previous, extinct species despite sharing no actual ancestry with them?

Has that ever happened?

 

[nPeace]

What's all this about "experiments"? Nothing in science says you have to do "experiments". It's a typical creationist notion.

Oh, I was not aware the steps followed in the scientific method was a Creationist's notion. No one told me this was wrong, and needed correcting.
Perhaps you can give me the correct procedure, which is not a misleading notion.

What you have to do in science is make reproducible observations of nature. Whether this is by an "experiment" (in a lab with white coats, test tubes and the full as-seen-on-TV stereotype) or by observation through a telescope, or in fieldwork of some kind, or anything else, does not matter.

So you do have to do experiments then. I'm a bit confused now. I'm not really sure what you are saying.

 

[nPeace]

How do you conclude that it is a religious approach, when I have explained to you it is all about observation of nature, an activity that plays no part at all in religion?

I'm afraid I think you are just being deliberately obtuse now.

Please explain what you mean by observations in nature.
How can I follow you when you are making so many confusing and vague statements? Why blame me for that?

 

[nPeace]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. You need to define what you mean by "assumptions". If you mean do they assume that concepts previously demonstrated to be correct are still correct then yes. That is the sort of "assumptions" that a scientist can make. If you mean in the sense that creationists usually use the term, then, no.

No I don't mean "they assume that concepts previously demonstrated to be correct are still correct". Where did that come from?
What does that have to do with vestigial organs?
Perhaps you can explain or demonstrate what you mean, using my last question, which you didn't answer.

I also don't know what you mean by "the sense that creationists usually use the term assume".

 

[nPeace]

Once again, do you believe that species just pop into existence, fully formed from nowhere, that just so happen to look a lot like previous, extinct species despite sharing no actual ancestry with them?

Has that ever happened?

Your question is a bit confusing.
I don't believe the evolutionist view that anything popped into existence from nothing, or nowhere.
Why do you want to pin that view on me?
Are you not the one who believes that?