What Americans Think about Evolution

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The only observation we have is of animals producing different varieties within its kind. Anything outside of that is pure speculation.

No the observation we have is that animals change to adapt to their environments, we then learned that all life shares a common means of reproducing DNA, we then discovered that all life is dependent on 21 known amino acids and that the code for these acids are redundant. Those were observations...that's what evolution describes. That's why we have the the whole strata for genus, species, family and so on...because again if you presented me a dog and a cat and I can see differences but still see similarities such as ears, a spine, four legged, a tail, fur or hair, predators why shouldn't I say a cat and dog are the same kind? We rely on speciation to explain that but on higher levels they fall in the same kingdom, phylum, class and family.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

These are trivial. Yes, dogs produce dogs; but as I've already noted elsewhere, sometimes dogs produces dogs that are slightly different, and then those slightly different dogs produce even more slightly different dogs, and so on.

Humans produce humans, right? Have you ever seen any "slightly different" humans being born??? Probably not, which means the theory is bogus.

Nope. You don't get to stipulate the domain of a scientific theory; you can't say, "if evolution can't explain why I like Coke more than Pepsi, then it is false!"

First off, that is not what I said. I never said that the question of the origin of life was about evolution. I have repeatedly said that evolution depends on abiogenesis being true. If life CANNOT come from nonlife, then evolution is FALSE. So thanks for the analogy that wasn't needed.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life- it makes NO CLAIMS about the origin of life. But if it doesn't make ANY claims about the origin of life, it is CONSISTENT with ANY origin of life; abiogenesis, divine special creation, alien intervention, you name it.

Right, it is consistent with everything but an observation of it occuring.

Wrong once again. As I suspect has been pointed out to you before, speciation has been observed (directly) in any number of cases.

I am not sure who is the lucky guy in the lab that is the chosen one to determine what is a specie and what isn't. Give me two "species" of dogs, they are still dogs right? Rest my case.

Which is irrelevant in the first place, since that something strikes you as absurd is not a valid argument- it is an appeal to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Ok so the next time someone tells me how absurd Christianity is, I will tell them that is an appeal to incredulity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Again. That's a flat out lie. And you won't know why until you actually open your ears to hear what people are telling you.

Yeah maybe I should listen to these people. They believe that life can come from nonlife, and that intelligence can come from nonintelligence. Yeah, I should listen to these people.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Humans produce humans, right? Have you ever seen any "slightly different" humans being born???

I don't find myself in a capacity where I routinely see anyone being born, but from what I can tell, there are mutations in humans, just like every other animal species.

Probably not, which means the theory is bogus.

Um no, clearly not; that I haven't seen any offspring that is slightly different has no interesting implications for the theory of evolution.

First off, that is not what I said. I never said that the question of the origin of life was about evolution. I have repeatedly said that evolution depends on abiogenesis being true.

The problem is, you are purely making this up, just like if you said that evolution depends on Coke being better than Pepsi. The theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose- it only assumes that life exists, and in diverse forms; both conditions being clearly met.

If life CANNOT come from nonlife, then evolution is FALSE.

Evolution is the process whereby life becomes diversified. It has nothing to do with how the first forms of life arose. If God created the first life forms, evolution can still be true. If aliens introduced the first life forms, evolution can still be true. If evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, it is consistent with ANY hypothesis regarding the origins of life.

You could try to refute this obvious point, or you could merely repeat your (patently and demonstrably) false claim about the relation between abiogenesis and evolution.

Right, it is consistent with everything but an observation of it occuring.

If it is consistent with it, it is consistent with an observation of it- obviously.

I am not sure who is the lucky guy in the lab that is the chosen one to determine what is a specie and what isn't. Give me two "species" of dogs, they are still dogs right? Rest my case.

Yeah, you may not want to rest your case before its been made. Species is delineated in terms of viability of reproduction: two organisms belong to the same species if and only if they can mate and produce fertile offspring. If you want a laundy list of examples of observed cases of speciation, just google "observed cases of speciation" (or something to this effect), or just visit these pages-

Observed Cases of Speciation

Some More Observed cases of Speciation

Ok so the next time someone tells me how absurd Christianity is, I will tell them that is an appeal to incredulity.

Go for it. Arguing that X strikes you as absurd or implausible is not a valid argument that X is false.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yeah maybe I should listen to these people. They believe that life can come from nonlife, and that intelligence can come from nonintelligence. Yeah, I should listen to these people.

Yeah, maybe I should listen to these people, they believe that life cannot come from non-life, and that intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence. Yeah, I should really listen to these people.

See how easy this is, and how it gets you precisely nowhere?

 

[Ouroboros]

Hey, its ALOT easier to criticize sound, established science when you can make ****** up as you go along. Otherwise it would be difficult indeed.

Yup. And not even caring about researching or reading to try to understand. Honesty starts with being honest to oneself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah maybe I should listen to these people. They believe that life can come from nonlife, and that intelligence can come from nonintelligence. Yeah, I should listen to these people.

Maybe you should. Maybe that instead of just blurting out ignorant and false statements. Don't you believe in truth? You think you have the thruth by shutting your ears and not try to learn something? You think truth comes from dogmatic rejection of anything outside your belief? You think you got all the truth already?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't find myself in a capacity where I routinely see anyone being born, but from what I can tell, there are mutations in humans, just like every other animal species.

Oh yeah, mutations based on what??

The problem is, you are purely making this up, just like if you said that evolution depends on Coke being better than Pepsi. The theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose- it only assumes that life exists, and in diverse forms; both conditions being clearly met.

I said "evolution depends on abiogenesis", and that prompted you to say "the theory of evolution makes no claims about how life arose", which has nothing to do with evolution depending on abiogenesis.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Maybe you should. Maybe that instead of just blurting out ignorant and false statements.

So, you are telling me that animals partake in large scale changes that will allow them to become a different kind of animal. I feel as if that is intellectually dishonest and flat out absurd. So now we both know how each other feels about our statements.

Don't you believe in truth?

So far, the truth has been dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. I have seen no evidence contrary to this truth.

You think you have the thruth by shutting your ears and not try to learn something? You think truth comes from dogmatic rejection of anything outside your belief? You think you got all the truth already?

Gen - Revelations is my truth.

 

[outhouse]

So, you are telling me that animals partake in large scale changes that will allow them to become a different kind of animal. I feel as if that is intellectually dishonest and flat out absurd. So now we both know how each other feels about our statements.



.

Evolution is not only honest it is now fact. does that make you intellectually dishonest?


Yet you make these statements from complete and utter ignorance of the scientific method.

What is worse is that it is wilful ignorance.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, you are telling me that animals partake in large scale changes that will allow them to become a different kind of animal.

Large scale changes come from many small changes. That's how morphology and physiology works.

You know this to be true, even if you're struggling with accepting it.

Take a town as an analogy. Is the town you live in the same as it was 100 years ago? No. There are most likely large differences. How did it happen? Everything looked the same for 99 years and 11 months, and then suddenly all the changes came at once? No. It was done little by little over time.

I feel as if that is intellectually dishonest and flat out absurd. So now we both know how each other feels about our statements.

Well, I was a Creationist for 30 years, so I know how you feel. It all got to a point where I realized I had to be honest to myself and look at the evidence truthfully instead of insisting on religious dogmatism.

So far, the truth has been dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. I have seen no evidence contrary to this truth.

There are thousands of dog breeds. Some of them can't copulate with other ones. We know that species evolve to other species. But since you're using "kinds" instead and claim that a "kind" can't evolve to another "kind", then you have to give a scientific definition of what "kind" is before you can make that claim.

Gen - Revelations is my truth.

How do you know? Where you there?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What should be noted is that even within the same kinds like I would assume a lion and tiger are the same kind, though they can reproduce their offsprings cannot, same with horses and donkeys two animals of the same kind that produce an offspring that is infertile? How does such a vague term like kind explain that? Why can't I cross a domesticated cat with a tiger and get something that can reproduce after it own kind? Are cats and tigers offsprings a new kind??

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Large scale changes come from many small changes. That's how morphology and physiology works.

That is the assumption. You can assume anything you want. These large scale changes is supposed to take place over millions and billions of years? Gimme a break.

You know this to be true, even if you're struggling with accepting it.

All I know is animals never produce something different than what they are. Why am I to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do something that the animals of today havent been observed to do? It seems obvious that in order for these large scale changes to occur, human beings have to not be around.

Take a town as an analogy. Is the town you live in the same as it was 100 years ago? No. There are most likely large differences. How did it happen? Everything looked the same for 99 years and 11 months, and then suddenly all the changes came at once? No. It was done little by little over time.

I agree, but that is based on observation. You see how that works? I observe it. It happens. What I don't see is even small changes which would imply macroevolution. I see alot of microevolution, but no macro.

Well, I was a Creationist for 30 years, so I know how you feel. It all got to a point where I realized I had to be honest to myself and look at the evidence truthfully instead of insisting on religious dogmatism.

The bible say even some of the disciples turned away from the faith (John 6:66). But hey, Christian theism isn't for everyone. Jesus said "Many are invited; few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14).

There are thousands of dog breeds. Some of them can't copulate with other ones.

There is a such thing as being at the bottom of the gene pool, you know that right? That doesn't prove evolution.

How do you know? Where you there?

Did I ever make the claim that you have to be there in order for something to be true?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is the assumption. You can assume anything you want. These large scale changes is supposed to take place over millions and billions of years? Gimme a break.



All I know is animals never produce something different than what they are. Why am I to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do something that the animals of today havent been observed to do? It seems obvious that in order for these large scale changes to occur, human beings have to not be around.



I agree, but that is based on observation. You see how that works? I observe it. It happens. What I don't see is even small changes which would imply macroevolution. I see alot of microevolution, but no macro.



The bible say even some of the disciples turned away from the faith (John 6:66). But hey, Christian theism isn't for everyone. Jesus said "Many are invited; few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14).



There is a such thing as being at the bottom of the gene pool, you know that right? That doesn't prove evolution.



Did I ever make the claim that you have to be there in order for something to be true?

You made that claim
For evolution...

 

[Ouroboros]

That is the assumption. You can assume anything you want. These large scale changes is supposed to take place over millions and billions of years? Gimme a break.

We know it did because we can see it in the fossils (there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them now). The fossil record for the changes of the horse, whale, and many other species are essentially complete. Most animals we can't see or find all transitions, but we have complete sets of many.

All I know is animals never produce something different than what they are. Why am I to believe that the animals of yesterday were able to do something that the animals of today havent been observed to do? It seems obvious that in order for these large scale changes to occur, human beings have to not be around.

They still do. But the changes are so small that it takes a long time before one species become another (new species that never existed before).

Morphological and physiological changes have been studied and observed on living animals. You'd knew if you just took some time looking into it.

I agree, but that is based on observation. You see how that works? I observe it. It happens. What I don't see is even small changes which would imply macroevolution. I see alot of microevolution, but no macro.

Macro means "in the large". Micro means "in the small".

Species do change through the fossil record. We can study the bones and see them changing. And for horses and whales in particular we can see all the changes in very small steps through the layers of strata.

The bible say even some of the disciples turned away from the faith (John 6:66). But hey, Christian theism isn't for everyone. Jesus said "Many are invited; few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14).

There are Christian theists who accept evolution. Accepting Evolution is not the same as rejecting Jesus or Christianity. It's only in your mind that they have to.

There is a such thing as being at the bottom of the gene pool, you know that right? That doesn't prove evolution.

Bottom of the gene pool? Have you tried to learn about the molecular evidence for evolution yet? It can be shown in the genes. But it takes a little bit of your time and focus to do.

Did I ever make the claim that you have to be there in order for something to be true?

So how do you know then? You know because some person wrote the book 2,000 years ago? It's old so therefore it is true, but only if you interpret it the way you want?

Genesis says that God commanded the sky, land, and oceans to "bring forth" life. That's evolution for you. Life evolved. It's Biblical.

 

[Ouroboros]

What should be noted is that even within the same kinds like I would assume a lion and tiger are the same kind, though they can reproduce their offsprings cannot, same with horses and donkeys two animals of the same kind that produce an offspring that is infertile? How does such a vague term like kind explain that? Why can't I cross a domesticated cat with a tiger and get something that can reproduce after it own kind? Are cats and tigers offsprings a new kind??

The "kind" label is very confusing (or useful for the science-deniers) since it doesn't have any functional definition. It's basically whatever it needs to be for the moment of argument to reject any claim from the scientific field. The study and science of taxonomy is rather complicated as it is, and the classifications now are done more and more based on the genetic evidence for how the species evolved. The cladograms are not exact to the evolutionary tree or lineage (probably partially because of crossover and admixture and such), but it's based on science and research, not guesswork based on how many could fit on an ark.

 

[Parsimony]

What I don't see is even small changes which would imply macroevolution.

What kind of small changes would you be looking for?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yeah, you are the guy that believes that life doesn't exist. So as I said before, I could kill you and I can't be charged with taking your life, because you said that life doesn't exist. Well alrighty then.

I already gave you a response to this very same thing a few posts back. Did you not read it? My guess is you have nothing new to show that my hypothesis is incorrect. Well alrighty then...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What kind of small changes would you be looking for?

What I don't see is how if you start at zero and successively add one a thousand times, you'll end up with a thousand. This whole concept just blows my gaskets.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I don't see is how if you start at zero and successively add one a thousand times, you'll end up with a thousand. This whole concept just blows my gaskets.

Yes. It's impossible! 1,000 cents is $10? Really? How did that happen? It must be magic.