The Big Bang and Evolution

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course there is a way to show me that----show the evidence to support what they say. For example lets say for mutations to be a mechanism for a change of species. Don't post a link. Cut and paste the evidence offered by any link you want to use .

IANS wrote: Did you see the link to Morton's Demon: The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002

Any thoughts on that?

I will ask you do one one thing. Go back to your link and cut and past the evidence they presented to support what they said. Over the years I have read many articles from Talk Origins. To date they have never provided any scientific evidence for what they say.

Sorry, but you need to meet me half-way here. The link is about three minutes of reading, and comprises the brief story of a young earth creationist's recognition of a cognitive bias that he unwittingly wore for years, and how it affected his ability to process information.

It's OK if you choose to not look at that, but your reason seems strange: Because I didn't copy-and-paste it all for you to read in a post rather than ask you to click on a link instead.

As I noted to you earlier, it is impossible to teach anything to a person without their cooperation, especially that which he or she has a vested interest in not learning. That's fine, but I can't get through such a barrier.

If you ever develop an interest in learning about evolution, the evidence will be your personal pursuit of information rather than asking others to go get it for you. You will come here with questions about your reading if you have any. At that time, we can have a give-and-take on evolution. Now, you're just asking people to bring you evidence and telling them that you don't see evidence there. That's Morton's demon at work. It's kind of pointless trying to get anything past it.

Consider how you approach something that you actually do want to learn - perhaps something about the Bible. What is your demeanor then? Probably not the same as it is here. It's probably cooperative and inquisitive. It probably involves you taking initiative. You might have a workbook, and it sends you too your Bible with its equivalent of a link - a chapter and verse. You hungrily look it up and pore over it as if it has value to you. You want to know it. And then you want to know it better.

That's what's missing here. If you brought that attitude to this endeavor, you could be taught. We can't do it without your help.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Indoctrination is when only one side is presented. When that starts earlier enough, it is hard for those indoctrinated to accept any other possibility.

Yes, only one side is presented, but it's the nature of the presentation that distinguishes proper teaching from indoctrination.

What goes on in secular schools is not the same thing as what happens in Sunday School. Indoctrination doesn't present evidence and argument, let the individual evaluate it and make a decision for himself like my school teachers did.

Nobody ever told me what I must believe, or scolded me for not accepting any dogma. I could have passed with flying colors just as long as I learned what was being presented and could demonstrate that I had done so whether I believed it or not.

Nor did anybody ask me if I believed it.

Indoctrination is telling somebody what to believe. He is to accept it uncritically. That is what creationism is and what creationists do, for example. They are simply told that God created the kinds, no evidence or argument is presented, and they are chastised for not believing it or asking too many questions. That's a completely unrelated method of instruction.

In a religious education, both sides are examined, although the heavy emphasis will be on "God did it."

Religious education is the classic example of indoctrination.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Take you own advice. In the extensive study of salamanders in California, the different KINDS of salamanders were never classified as a different species. They were classified as a subspecies. That does not qualify under the definition you just offered.

Thanks for offering that I take my own advice!
What you're referring to is a form of Allopatric speciation. It ends up with the development and emergence of a new population based on geographic isolation from the parent group.
Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia

You're referring to a well-known ring species. That's good! I'm glad you know about them (Though you're about to run into the same roadblock that most creationists do in being unable to answer the next question...)

Ring species - Wikipedia
Discovering a ring species

Since you recognize the existence of the new population of salamanders, and admit that they diverged from their parent population via natural means, I'd like you explain to me what natural genetic barrier exists which would stop them from developing further, becoming even more distinct and separated from their parent population as time goes on... Imagine that instead of a mountain range and a few lakes that they had been isolated by continents and drastic weather differences. What might we expect from those two populations after further isolation? What biological mechanism exists to keep this completely new species of salamander from diverging further from their original genetic pool? Are there any?

You're agreeing that physical environments and factors have the ability to "create" entirely new species, even if you prefer to call them subspecies. A population of creatures now exists that did not previously exist. They came into existence via wholly natural means, adapting to their ever-changing environments as they traveled further and further away from their original population and locale. They now exist as a physiologically distinct group that does not (or cannot) interbreed with their original group. If that's not evolution, I'd like you to tell me what it is.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The BB and Evolution.

In what sense has the BB any thing to do with Evolution?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IANS wrote: "I was taught that scientific theories can never be proven, just falsified."

Then you were taught wrong. It has been proven there is more than one blood type and it can e proved what type you have.

It has been proven that with few exceptions, all life forms have DNA. It has been proven which life forms do not have DNA.

It has been proven that DNA can identify the life form from which it came.

None of these example can be falsified.

And none are scientific theories. Falsification refers to explanatory hypotheses, not to observable facts. It refers to the possibility of an observation disproving an idea if the idea is wrong.

 

[jonathan180iq]

And none are scientific theories. Falsification refers to explanatory hypotheses, not to observable facts. It refers to the possibility of an observation disproving an idea if the idea is wrong.

Yes. Again, basic stuff... Like the Theory of Gravity, or Germ Theory - those could be falsified, they just haven't been. The same is true of Evolutionary Theory.

I'll never understand why creationists try so hard to debate a topic they know almost nothing about...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks, I did not know that.

If they dont breed how do they produce a new species?

Viruses are not generally considered living things. They're genetic material packaged in protein coats that infect cells, co-opt its metabolic capability, and cause the infected cells to reproduce more viruses. Their genetic material can mutate, which is why a new influenza virus is required every flu season.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I quit checking links years ago. They NEVER provide any evidence for what they say.

Now prove me wrong and go back to you link and cut and paste the evidence they offered.

I have put on my prophecy hat and predict Bob, will not prove me wrong. I doubt if I will hear from him again on this subject.

The evidence is in the links - the first three, anyway. The fourth link addresses creationist objections to evolution such as, "Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law."

If you have any interest in the evidence, click on them and read. There is no reason for others to bring the words to you.

 

[ArtieE]

Now prove me wrong and go back to you link and cut and paste the evidence they offered.

In post number 572 omega2xx wrote and I quote: "There hasn't been a new species since time began."

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

"A remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years."

Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

 

[jonathan180iq]

In post number 572 omega2xx wrote and I quote: "There hasn't been a new species since time began."

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

"A remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years."

Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

"But they're still mice! They're still mosquitos..."

You can't beat cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.

He's also about to tell IANS that he doesn't have to click on the links we provide because he's "been reading evo links for over 20 years and has never seen anything new..." Which should be alarming, because it means he stopped learning two decades ago.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

If God exists perhaps the big bang was his way of creating the universe making scientist and Religion correct.

Maybe he is also responsible for evolution.

There IS a school of thought that accepts all of the ideas of Science and Darwinian Evolution. And even the old ages of the fossils and the Earth. And it also admits that the Genesis account of Creation is pure allegory and has not a drop of real science to it.

It is called Theistic Evolution. TE'ers just think that all those processes of Selective Inheritance and Evolution were NOT borne of random genetic mutations, as the atheist Evolutionists like Dawkins think. But rather, were guided by a Universal Intelligence. They ascribe to God a role as sort of a Blind Watchmaker, or an Absentee Landlord who set the wheels turning, but does not meddle in human affairs.

 

[ArtieE]

"But they're still mice! They're still mosquitos..."

You can't beat cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.

I am just showing that his statement "There hasn't been a new species since time began" is simply not true.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I am just showing that his statement "There hasn't been a new species since time began" is simply not true.

I know. And you're absolutely right! He even admitted as much in a response to me, albeit unwittingly.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Or... Who's got the most knowledge, accumulated educational, and PhDs.

The overwhelming majority of PhDs in theology and divinity conclude the existence of a divine being, so I assume you do not question their authority on this?

 

[ChristineM]

Have a nice day. You get to angry to discuss anything intelligently.

Ha, ha, ha, wonderful how godbots consider facts that refute bronze age mumbo jumbo to be anger

What you are saying is you cannot defend your position with words to you opt for ad hominem, you must be a Christian.

 

[ChristineM]

The overwhelming majority of PhDs in theology and divinity conclude the existence of a divine being, so I assume you do not question their authority on this?

You can assume what you want. Theology and divinity are not evidence based disciplines.

My first history professors PhD was in American comics, that made him a very amusing tutor but he was clueless regarding say quantum gravity...

 

[QuestioningMind]

I have challenged all you evos to cut and past the evidence from any link you choose. To date NONE have done so. What does that tell you.

Instead of whinning about what I do, be the hero and show them I am wrong. Cut and paste some evidence and we can discuss it. IMO, some have gone back and when they looked for the evidence all they found was opinions.

You can thank ArtieE for this:

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

"A remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years."

Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

 

[ChristineM]

You can thank ArtieE for this:

"A small handful of European mice deposited on the island of Madeira some 600 years ago have now evolved into at least six different species. The island is very rocky and the mice became isolated into different niches. The original species had 40 chromosomes, but the new populations have anywhere between 22-30 chromosomes. They haven't lost DNA, but rather, some chromosomes have fused together over time and so the mice can now only breed with others with the same number of chromosomes, making each group a separate species."

"A remarkable example is the London Underground mosquito. It is believed to have evolved from an above-ground species which moved into tunnels being excavated to construct the London underground rail system in the 1850s. Today the underground mosquito's aggressive bite gives commuters hell, while the above-ground species only feeds off birds. The two species can no longer interbreed and have become separate in just 150 years."

Are new species still evolving? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Interesting, here's more.


Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus)

This extraordinary gecko was first discovered in 2008 on an island off North-western Malaysia by Dr Lee Grismer and his team.

It uses its amazing eyesight and grip to catch its forest-dwelling prey at night.

But what made it a discovery of the decade was that this forest gecko has also recently been found in a limestone cave.

The forest-dwelling and cave-dwelling geckos show evolution at work

The cave gecko looks similar to those living in the forest but has some remarkable visible differences.

Dr Grismer believes this could be evolution in the making - a gecko that has evolved to live in a cave.

The lizards may have moved into the caves to avoid predators - specifically pit vipers that live in the forest.


Pygmy three-toed sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus)

This species, discovered on the island on Escudo de Veraguas off the Carribean coast, shows how quickly the process of evolution can happen.

The pygmy sloth, number one on the list, has a surprising talent
The pygmy sloth has been isolated on its tiny island habitat for just 9,000 years - when rising sea levels cut the island off from the mainland.

The sloths are slower and more placid than their mainland relatives and, remarkably, they can swim.

They seem suitably adapted to their Caribbean island lifestyle.

Pygmy sloths are less than half the size of a normal sloth and they only eat mangrove leaves - a low-nutirent diet that explains their diminutive stature.

There are just 200 of them on the island so every mangrove tree counts for these vulnerable creatures.

Extract from
The decade's top ten new species (BBC)

BBC - Earth News - The decade's top ten new species

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I quit checking links years ago. They NEVER provide any evidence for what they say.

Now prove me wrong and go back to you link and cut and paste the evidence they offered.

I have put on my prophecy hat and predict Bob, will not prove me wrong. I doubt if I will hear from him again on this subject.

All I have to do, to prove you wrong? Is to post the links. It is not UP to me to SCHOOL you in Science. Furthermore? I don't give a rat's exhaust what you do from now on, as I'll be blocking your comments after this post is viewed, or in a day or so.

I haven't figured out how to do that in this venue, yet, but I'm sure there are ways. Congratulations! You will be my first Ignore in this page.

Life is too short to argue with people who refuse to learn.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Have a nice day. You get to angry to discuss anything intelligently.