Question for Evolutionists - your view on....

a reply to: VVV88

The thing about the ID or Intelligent Design argument is that it is pretty much creationism re-labeled.

Have you ever heard of the Wedge Strategy or the Discovery Institute?

I know the history of the ID argument so when ID is brought up it is really indistinguishable to me from regular old creationism and creationists.

If the those towing the line of ID are different they must be a group and argument I have never heard before.


To be concise, I will tell you it isn't questioning evolution that gets creationists labeled as creationists. It is what they believe to be the explanation for the diversity of life that makes them creationists.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: VVV88

The thing about the ID or Intelligent Design argument is that it is pretty much creationism re-labeled.

Have you ever heard of the Wedge Strategy or the Discovery Institute?

I know the history of the ID argument so when ID is brought up it is really indistinguishable to me from regular old creationism and creationists.

If the those towing the line of ID are different they must be a group and argument I have never heard before.


To be concise, I will tell you it isn't questioning evolution that gets creationists labeled as creationists. It is what they believe to be the explanation for the diversity of life that makes them creationists.

Thanks for this insight. I will read what you have posted.

How do you explain different races? If god created one man and one woman to make everyone? Case closed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: VVV88

God and evolution can co-exist. Technically it is the God of the Gaps argument, but I can't disprove that argument either. But then again, I'm agnostic so I keep myself open to all possibilities.

Man definitely descended from the great apes though. That has been pretty much definitively proven. If you disbelieve that, then you are just outright denying mountains of solid evidence from the fossil record and genetics that says this is the case.

And there is "no" evidence to the contrary? And that Evolution is not a theory but verifiable via the scientific method? If it is a theory, does not not every theory have eliminates of faith as represented in the "assumptions" used in building that theory? My world view doesn't implode if, in the the future, 100% irrefutable proof is found that man and ape share a common ancestor but I don't accept it as a fact at this point in time.

And thanks for the God of the Gaps link - I did read it.

a reply to: VVV88

There is a difference between denying it because you don't like what it says and denying it because you find flaws in the reasoning. Denying it because you don't like it is confirmation bias speaking. Denying it because you find flaws in the reasoning shows that you educated yourself on the argument and its corresponding evidence and found that it didn't add to what is being claimed.

If there is overwhelming evidence to say something is the case, it is best to just accept it for the time being. Sure it may be overturned at a later date with newer evidence, but you don't have that yet and don't know if it even exists. So there is no point worrying about it.

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: VVV88

God and evolution can co-exist. Technically it is the God of the Gaps argument, but I can't disprove that argument either. But then again, I'm agnostic so I keep myself open to all possibilities.

Man definitely descended from the great apes though. That has been pretty much definitively proven. If you disbelieve that, then you are just outright denying mountains of solid evidence from the fossil record and genetics that says this is the case.

And there is "no" evidence to the contrary? And that Evolution is not a theory but verifiable via the scientific method? If it is a theory, does not not every theory have eliminates of faith as represented in the "assumptions" used in building that theory? My world view doesn't implode if, in the the future, 100% irrefutable proof is found that man and ape share a common ancestor but I don't accept it as a fact at this point in time.

And thanks for the God of the Gaps link - I did read it.

Your first misunderstanding is how taxonomy works, or more precisely how cladistics works. We have never evolve out of your ancestry, we are still apes, as was our common ancestor with other apes. Through time, the variety of ape species increased, but they never stopped being apes. The same applies to our common ancestor with other primates, other mammals, other vertebrats, and other eukaryotes. We are what our ancestors were plus modifications.. This is a vital concept that you need to understand. This is echoed in Darwin's own writings were he described evolution as "descent with modification".

The fact is that the youngest hominid fossils more closely resemble modern humans that the older hominid fossils, which more closely resemble a basal ape. This isn't based on belief. This is based on empirical fact.

To add to the fossil record we have genetic evidence demonstrating that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. These include shared pseudogenes and shared retroviral insertions. Again.. these are empirical facts, not beliefs.

originally posted by: VVV88
So my question to evolutionists is do you see everyone that questions evolution (and let’s cut to the chase, evolution to mean modern man biologically evolving from simians via randomness and natural selection) as backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes?

Only if they deliberately and willfully stick to their "beliefs" in the face of all overwhelming evidence.

If someone doesn't know about something or understand it, that's not their fault. But if someone is entirely capable of understanding and comprehending the reality we live in, the scientific data, the evidence we have all around us, and yet they actively reject what we actually know in favor of unfounded beliefs, then yes they are backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes.

It's the same as flat Earth theory back in the day. Even when there was a wealth of evidence and scientific data to show that the Earth was round, and even though there was no evidence and no science at all to suggest the Earth was flat, backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes still refused to accept the reality.

It's one thing to have an open mind when available data is inconclusive, but it's a completely different thing to have a mind so open it rejects available science in favor of a belief based on nothing but faith, or a belief in *insert equally unfounded wishy washy hippy dippy sh*t here*

And yes I'm a hippy.

a reply to: VVV88

The thing is, no matter how they cloak it or present it, almost all opposition to the theory of evolution is motivated by the fact that it contradicts their faith based beliefs.

Not many other well established theories in science are challenged this way. You don't see people questioning gravity or the laws of motion.

A few may question germ theory, but that's pretty rare. You do see a lot of people questioning global warming, but that's mostly conservatives brainwashed by corporate propaganda and also shares an overlap with the ID/creationist people anyway.

I do not consider them mentally retarded or anything like that, but most of them are ignorant in the sense that they will not even bother to learn the science involved.

About mutation. Let's say we inject cells with different DNA and RNA in a body and the difference is not cancerous and are accepted, by the rest of the body and not rejected. And makes it so that when the cells recreate themselves the new cells are the ones recreating themselves while the old are not allowed to recreate. Would not the whole body have different DNA/RNA after 7 years in a male body? (made a difference between female and male since the eggs in females are are created before birth so DNA/RNA would be set at that time).

I am not so sure the body is not partly evolving even after it is born. It all depends on how the body responds to the mutation/change. It would not surprise if you can have sperm that are different DNA/RNA locally than the majority of cells in the rest of the body.

I do believe in evolution as a way to create the biological bodies we inhabit. I am unsure if there is not ways to manipulate/change/evolve what you are given. I think an evolution idea where only differences happen at conception is a simplification that is untrue to what really happens or could happen in a body.

originally posted by: Elementalist


Adaptation is the genes, relating and changing to survive the external environment. There is a difference, even if your pretending there is not. One is genes at work, the other is magic spontaneous.

So you're suggesting that DNA is self-aware or that an organism can consciously change its DNA? That's the only way your explanation works.

Evolution is and always will be a theory. Adaptation is what happens when genes change for the entire body to thrive, in an external environment.

Every time someone says "evolution is a theory" as though that means it's just a guess, I throw up in my mouth just a bit. That's the most ignorant statement thrown out by every evolution-denier and is a sure sign that they don't understand science... at all.

Again, are you suggesting that DNA is self-aware or that an organism can consciously change its DNA?

The body wants growth, it must adapt to changes within it's external environment to do so,. Some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so, and such, the body change.

So in one sentence, you're suggesting that an organism can change its DNA because "it wants to" and then you go on to say "some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so..." If I really really want to be a dragon, can I change my DNA to make it so?

Can you just admit that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you're making things up just so you can have an alternative to evolution?

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: VVV88


You don't see people questioning gravity or the laws of motion.

I'm just curious: at what point does a scientific theory become a "law"?

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: VVV88


You don't see people questioning gravity or the laws of motion.

I'm just curious: at what point does a scientific theory become a "law"?

Just to clarify, there isn't some sort of hierarchy involved. That is to say that a Law in science is not better than or above a theory. A theory is not a Law in waiting. Basically, a Law explains what nature will do under a certain set of condition and makes predictions on what will happen IF those conditions are met. A law is only a part of a theory that cans typically be summed up in a sentence, or demonstrated mathematically in a single equation but it doesn't answer the "why?". A Law essentially explains something in the natural world but doesn't describe it. One example would be Newtons Law of Gravity...yes it is generally referred to as a Theory but it is actually both. Gravity is demonstrated via this equation- (F = G*m1*m2/d^2). It is the statement that the force by which a particle of mass M acts on a particle of mass m has magnitude GMm/r2 and direction from m to M. Newton's theory of gravity is the framework that contains this law and everything else you need to calculate the motion of particles influenced by this law.

originally posted by: Elementalist
*giggles*

Wit runs rampant in ATS I see.

If there is evolving, there certainly is devolving. There is always an opposite to anything, in a duel universe.

No...there is no such thing as devolving. Evolution describes changes over time. Any change is evolution, there is no barometer regarding the "direction" of the changes taking place over many, many successive generations.

The body ADAPTS over time, genetically to its external environment. Saying evolve is saying spontaneous upgrades. Nothing is spontaneous.

No, evolve does not mean anything spontaneous. The closest evolution gets to spontaneity is Punctuated Equilibrium and while it is a change that happens at a faster than normal pace, it is still, from a human perspective, a lengthy process that doesn't occur within a generation or even a few.

Adaptation is the genes, relating and changing to survive the external environment. There is a difference, even if your pretending there is not. One is genes at work, the other is magic spontaneous.

DE evolving is going backwards in physical form, downgrading. .. this is poor diet, lack of muscle use, breath work etc. The things that feed and power genes.

No it is not going backwards or downgrading. Any change whether is be morphological as you describe or something else, is still EVolution. To Devolve, we would regress to earlier ancestors such as H. Erectus, H. Habilis, H. Ergaster, H. Antecesor etc... and those are just from the genus Homo. We could go further back to the Australopithecines or the Ardepithicus line or even as far back as when we diverged from our closest primate relatives, the Chimpanzee. It is not however what you are trying to describe and its a moot point because Devolving is NOT a biological process. It's something out of comic books.

Over time the body being fueled by garbage artifical foods, acids for fluid, and this relates to lesser human bodies.
(Weakness, laziness, lack of energy, lack of mental processing Etc)

These things only affect evolution is it happens through an entire population as that is how evolution, speciation et al are measured, not on an individual basis. You're grasping at straws here simply because you neither understand nor care for or want to learn about modern evolutionary synthesis. Go do some research into what the theories actually say before coming out with this level of drivel.

Evolution is and always will be a theory. Adaptation is what happens when genes change for the entire body to thrive, in an external environment.

Yes, evolution is a theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

Check out Bruce Lipton works. He is a genealogist,

What does charting a family tree have to do with evolutionary theory?

biologist, where Darwin was using theories and was nothing special..

You're joking right? As noted above, a Scientific Theory is something that is repeatedly tested and confirmed. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a FACT according to the scientific definitions. It is confirmed repeatedly...through genetics, morphology, the fossil record and on and on it goes... To say Darwin is nothing special and then prop up Lipton shows exactly what your creationist perspective is because that is exactly what Lipton is attempting to prove via his hypothesis that genes and DNA can be manipulated and altered simply from someones thoughts or beliefs. He has never held a tenured position and almost all of his research is confined to the development of Muscle Cells. Hardly earth shattering research into evolutionary theory as a whole.

The body wants growth, it must adapt to changes within it's external environment to do so,. Some how genes really arrange themselves to make this so, and such, the body change.

To his own...

No, that's not how evolution or natural selection works at all. There are a multitude of factors involved and none of them involve "the body wanting growth". The body wants to survive to pass its genes on down the line. Most mutations are neutral, not positive or negative, and consequently have little or no effect on the organism in question. Let's look at the Toba event 70KYA where the population oh H. Sapiens (and all other hominids on earth, leaving us literally the last man standing) across the globe was nearly wiped out and down to a population of between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals. This is why there is not a high degree if genetic diversity outside of the KhoiSan people in Southern Africa. It's also one of the factors that led to the demise of Neanderthal and Denisovans within 30KY. H. Sapiens were adapted to an East African climate and moved into a much colder Europe 40KYA and then spread across the globe. Aside from some minor morphological adaptations, the species as a whole hasn't changed a whole lot nor has the body wanted to change and miraculously altered genes as you say. If that were the case, we would be able to see and measure these changes when the human genome was mapped.

a reply to: VVV88

So my question to evolutionists is do you see everyone that questions evolution (and let’s cut to the chase, evolution to mean modern man biologically evolving from simians via randomness and natural selection) as backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes?

Well, yes — if you want to put it in those terms.

To anyone who understands it, the evidence for evolution is unquestionable. It is true that there have been a handful of very eminent (usually also very elderly) scientists who did question it, but it is usually quite easy to show that, despite their eminence, they failed to understand the theory of natural selection, or misinterpreted the evidence. One well-known example is the late Sir Fred Hoyle, an Astronomer Royal of Great Britain, who thought evolution was like a wind blowing through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a Boeing 747. Obviously, he hadn't a clue about how evolution by natural selection works.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. The 'theory of evolution' is a theory of how it happens and what causes it, not a theory that it happens. The statement 'evolution doesn't happen' has precisely the same intellectual weight as the statement 'gravity doesn't exist'.

When an evolutionist (some here don't like the term, but I'm cool with it) calls someone who refuses to accept the fact of evolution a 'creationist', there could be two reasons for this.

The first is that there are, as far as anyone can see, only two competing explanations for the diversity of species: evolution by descent from a common ancestor, and separate creation of individual species by a pre-existing Creator (if you can think of any other expanation that will stand up to five minutes' scrutiny, I should be glad to hear it). So, whether they believe themselves to be religious or not, anyone discounting evolution is, by default, a creationist.

The second explanation is that the evolutionist is paying the denialist a compliment. If you are religious, and the doctrines of your religion prevent you from accepting the truth of evolution by natural selection, then you cannot, in good conscience, accept the truth of evolution without betraying your faith. Thus, no matter how convincing the arguments put forward for evolution (and they are convincing — definitively convincing — for anyone with the patience and wit to comprehend them), the believer must — however dubiously, however reluctantly — reject them. By calling such a person a creationist, the evolutionist is assuming that the denier of evolution is a man or woman of honour who will not break their allegiance to their faith no matter how wrong the tenets of that faith may be.

On the other hand, a person who rejects evolution because he or she genuinely thinks the evidence is not good enough or the arguments for it are wrong is just a person who has not understood the evidence and the arguments. And so yes, quite possibly a 'backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodyte', though I wouldn't choose to put it quite that way myself.

a reply to: GetHyped

A debate implies both sides are informed and are adhering to certain rules

Also, a debate implies that the point of issue is debatable.

a reply to: Astyanax

True, although an intellectually honest debater would concede when presented with a compelling, evidence-based argument, something I've never seen from the anti-science camp on here. Of course, it does beg the question how they could be on the anti-science side in the first place...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Every time a gene mutates some old information is lost. The genetic code is degenerate. New mutations are pretty much always negative in some way.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Every time a gene mutates some old information is lost. The genetic code is degenerate. New mutations are pretty much always negative in some way.

You should go restudy how mutations work because you are wrong. In any case, none of this has to do with what devolution would be. If what you said was true, then life would constantly break down and never get more complex. There would be no evolution to begin with. Therefore devolution would never be able to happen. So even if your inaccuracy were to be true, devolution would still not exist.

Devolution would be where your offspring have the genes of your parents, and each new generation had an even older generation's genes. This is clearly impossible going by how genes are passed on.

a reply to: Astyanax

As I said in my OP, the intent was not to argue the science of evolution vs ID but to better understand some of the animosity I read in these type of exchanges to understand the perspectives of those – for lack of a better term – Evolutionists to understand the semantics. As a non-scientist, a few take-ways for me. Evolution does not invalidate a creator. While some believe it does others do not. I used ID in my OP but I now understand how that is a loaded term and synomonous for some to mean Creationism based on resource links provided. In the context of shared man-app ancestry and evolution, some have posted it is indeed fact others have stated it is a theory. That’s were I get hung up on accepting that aspect of evolution as fact. I do understand that evidence and related scientific research methods can lead to that conclusion, but….

If I can use an analogy in a subject area that I am knowledgeable about - finance and Investments. I can create a financial model that predicts when the current trend in the stock market will change based on historical market data and various financial/mathematical formulas. All of the raw data is historical “fact” and the formulas are proven mathematical calculations; e.g., rate of price change, stochastics, volatility, etc. etc. The results of the model can be measured and predictives derived. Based on that, the model can be optimized via various criteria. Furthermore, those parameters can be changed to give differing results. I can repeat the experiment and confirm the results both on a historical as well as rolling forward basis. But, the model is still based on subjective criteria (assumptions) in how the data is used and the formulas applied given that it is attempting to predict future behavior of a complex system and the model is likely to break down as time goes on and market dynamics change. But, for a period of time the model accurately reflected market dynamics. The data remains facts, the formulas remain valid but other “unpredictable” (unknown) variables have entered the market system to invalidate the model. In other words the model and its “results” are nothing more than a mathematical representation of a theory...it is not fact or a Law.

The other issue I have is that my belief system involves a sentient entity(ies) existing outside of our physical laws and dimension. And , therefore I have a built-in skeptic bias. The universe is not a closed system in my “view”. Best analogy would be the Matrix (yes, the movie). If Neo drops a rock in the Matrix will it hit the ground? Does The Law of Gravity (programming) apply to all situations and to all “beings” in the Matrix? Esoteric stuff yes and too many in here that has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. My point, other theories and discoveries have the potential to invalidate what we think we know. Does quantum mechanics theory, for example, become the new “round world”?

Anyway, I appreciate the responses of those that took the time to give both substantive and meaningful replies and humored me through my “ignorance”. I learned some things.