What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: borntowatch

I understand your arguments (at least I think I do, and am reasonably comfortable thinking so), as well as those of others, and I understand the limitations of science and of our knowledge of reality. The evidence for evolution is maybe less compelling than the germ theory of disease (as you can directly observe bacteria entering cells and causing changes, and one of the major arguments against evolution seems to be that you cannot observe it directly with exception to what you seem to agree to be "microevolution"), but perhaps is equally compelling as the theory of gravity or plate tectonics. The work and scientific study that is the foundation of the theory of evolution uses the same scientific approach, the same tools, the same measurements that go into any other work in any other branch of science. There are many things left to learn in all of these theories, and there is yet much to learn about our universe and potential others... We don't fully understand the entirety of chemistry (look at how many different theories/models there are for acid-base reactions...) but that doesn't mean we can't use those same reactions to do something productive, like determine that limestone is calcite by dissolving it with dilute hydrochloric acid.

See, to greatly simplify (as really those acid-base theories are about HOW the reaction occurs) this acid-base theory states that the hydrochloric acid will react with the calcite to produce CO2 and CaCl2 (in some fashion, depending upon theory). I make this prediction, and determine an appropriate experiment. This experiment is to place the acid onto limestone. If it reacts with the limestone producing these products, I have support for the theory and my hypothesis. This makes my experiment falsifiable. I discover the reaction occurs as predicted, support is given. Well, how is this any different from using my understanding of geology/paleontology to predict the locality in which I would find an animal like the tiktaalik? This prediction is falsifiable, yet it was not falsified. One point of data, but it supports the general theory.

Now to talk about adaptation... Those species that cannot survive do not reproduce, or do not reproduce as long as those that can, thus decreasing likelihood of those sets of genes being passed on. You do not adapt to environmental change as an individual. You respond to it. If you can't eat iocaine powder, you die. (Nice reference by the way.) If no member of your species can eat iocaine powder, your species goes extinct. If the Earth gets hot enough to boil granite (turn it to magma), well, I don't know anything that could survive that. (Your suggestion of increasing temperature a thousand fold.) That said, most complex species only have a fossil record of a million or so years (according to my paleontology professor, so with a grain of salt here...) Which makes "living fossils" interesting... I digress, yes, humans would die long before that point, unless they could unnaturally use their intelligence to change their environments or their own genes. Sci-fi. Time is the factor because changes are often gradual (and they don't often involve boiling rock ;D ), and life is often able to move to locations better suited to their liking. Think migratory birds for example. For extinction events where a lot of (sometimes most of) Earth's life has died...
en.wikipedia.org...
Fair point about the milk though. It is something inherent to mammals. (If you are convinced by evolutionary theory, then all mammals are related, and the ability to produce milk evolved once and has been retained in most mammals, that in itself being a mutation or series of mutations...)
I do thank you for being kind with my quick/rough examples though.

The following is a response to Quadrivium (I do apologize for combining these comments. I don't know the etiquette around here for double posting).

No one would listen if I weren't civil. I've not got the proper qualifications to call myself an expert, and I don't have the education to do so either, so civility is my best option to get an audience to listen, right? ;D I appreciate your civility, as well as borntowatch's.
Absolutely right, molds and casts of lifeforms. Most original material has decayed or been replaced or altered/removed. There are, however, some exceptional fossils which show much more detail despite this. I've collected hundreds of crushed/faulted/stretched trilobite fossils (mostly of the order Phacopida, limited to Devonian rocks), but they wouldn't be very useful in many academic studies... But on occasion, I've found nicely preserved schizochroal eyes and original calcitic exoskeletal material. Based on shared features and geological proximity (as in finding them in the same outcrop, in the same layers of strata), I can reliably tell you if some of those crushed fossils are indeed the same genus, if not species, as the nicely preserved ones. (well, maybe not me, but a trilobite expert could.)
I liked the article. I'll look into the whale timeline/mutation thing, as that is a common example thrown around. As I said before though, bad science gets rejected in the end. Even if Miller was wrong wrong with the explanation, the idea may still be sound. I'm not an expert, but serious science journals make their money selling articles of recent study to serious scientists. Things don't get published into a peer-reviewed journal without a lot of scrutiny (although sometimes a lot isn't enough.) It does seem (from my understanding of the author of the article) that Miller was using the idea of cladistics in developing his presentation while presenting it as direct ancestry (transitional forms between two given species), which is of course incorrect.
*Edit* I digested the information a little more thoroughly. (I've got red on my face for being so hasty to respond.) It seems that your article cites a cladistics paper written by an entomologist by the name of Brower. (Link to paper below.)
www.ib.usp.br...
It's an interesting read, but it seems to be arguing over the philosophy of evolution's ties to cladistics... I don't dabble in philosophy, so that's like asking me how to fix an engine. >.> I understand the argument stems from whether evolution causes the pattern or if pattern is being inferred as evolution. I'd argue that there exists too many similarities with life for their not to be common ancestors outside of clades, but I dunno... Maybe I'm interpreting the paper incorrectly. Here's a link to the wikipedia page relevant.
en.wikipedia.org...
Anyway, point was originally that this demonstrates how relatively new cladistics is, so I wouldn't be surprised if older generations of biologists are unaware of it and modern faults with taxonomy.


And I do not mean to be rude, but I must admit that I am skeptical of claims made by the Discovery Institute. I don't trust most scientists on a non-academic payroll, but I am especially skeptical of those on a payroll without mainstream peer-review processes to check claims.

In final conclusion, sorry for the long post.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
reply to: hydeman11
First let me thank you on the thought provoking responses. Despite what some may think, this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

On fossils and the tree of life:
Most times all we have to go by is a stone image of an organism that was once alive. While we have two or more fossils that look a lot alike in stone, they may have been totally different in life. The limbs on the tree of life are theoretical, we assume what the precursors of a fossil may have looked like and fill in the blanks.
Here is an article I thought you might find interesting:

www.evolutionnews.org...

Your cite is from a creationist website and sadly is about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
So how exactly does the fossil record prove evolution? Could you explain a little further?

Others have on this thread. I am not going to restate what they said. You seem to think that there is still some kind of scientific debate over the viability of the Theory of Evolution. I have some news for you: there isn't. Evolution is only controversial amongst creationists, who either refuse to believe it out of some kind of religious idee fixe or who wilfully misunderstand it - again, out of some kind of religious idee fixe.

I will admit, I have not read the entire thread. With that said, if no new evidence about the fossil record has been presented, in the past few days, then it would probably be the same regurgitated responses.
You are incorrect in your assumption that I do not know or am familiar with the "theory". I find that most times I understand it better than many who claim to follow it.
The fossil record does not support the theory as many people claim. There really is no reason to get personal about it.
I understand that you have been told countless times that the fossil record supports evolution......but have YOU ever seen this evidence? It is simple to say "it has been showed, many times" yet another thing all together to actually show where and how.

But if you haven't read the entire thread then why should we reiterate anything for you? Go and read the entire thing and you might get an idea of why this is so frustrating. We have provided example after example after example - and all we get in response is first a request for more information and then a statement that we can't prove a damn thing and a flat statement that some people called 'evolutionists' (a word that STILL doesn't exist) are somehow ignoring the evidence. It's gone beyond frustrating.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
reply to: hydeman11
First let me thank you on the thought provoking responses. Despite what some may think, this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

On fossils and the tree of life:
Most times all we have to go by is a stone image of an organism that was once alive. While we have two or more fossils that look a lot alike in stone, they may have been totally different in life. The limbs on the tree of life are theoretical, we assume what the precursors of a fossil may have looked like and fill in the blanks.
Here is an article I thought you might find interesting:

www.evolutionnews.org...

How can you make the assertion that you "understand the theory better than those that support it" in one post and post rubbish from the Discovery Institute in another? Are you a member/fellow for the Discovery Institute? An organization who constantly lies and misrepresents actual scientific papers, through quote mining, in order to deceive like minded religious folk into thinking they have any scientific basis for their arguments?

To demonstrate the lengths they go to deceive:
1. There is only one citation for that article; however, there is NO information in the article from the actual citiation. So, while the citation is from an actual peer reviewed journal it is "bogus", as the author didn't use any of the information from that citation. This gives the illusion that the author's assertions have some scientific backing, which they do not.

2. The "quoted" section from article is from another article the author (Luskin) wrote for "DiscoveryNews", which is another site that is owned and operated by the charlatans at the Discovery Institute. An article where he quote mines paleontological papers where researchers argue over the fine points of others work . . . yet, do not "conclude" that there are any problems with the fossil record or the standard model. If you "understand" the theory so well and have actually read "real" peer reviewed work, not just D.I. hoaxes, you would understand this happens all the time. In fact, the D.I. relies on this to deceive those that do not have a formal background in science. It seems it worked on you . . . ?

3. All of the other "links" in the article, not referencing Kenneth Miller, are links to other (variously named) Discovery Institute vehicles. So, in essence, all actual citations for Luskin's article are from himself and the organization that he represents. Of course there is that citation at the bottom of the article . . . I'm sure the support for his assertions are found there?

So what about the actual paper that was cited for the article in your link? Hydeman added the link to his response here:
Bower -Evolution is Not a Necessary Assumption of Cladistics-ib.usp.br

The paper does not make the conclusion that the article in question does. In fact, (and I can't copy and paste as it is a .pdf), it clearly states on page numbered (151):
"The process of phylogeny that explains the heirarchical patterns discovered by systematics is one of the most profound empirical theories of modern science. I have not claimed the macroevolution is poorly corroborated and therefore not intersubjectively plausible (macroevolution is one of my personal favorite theories, and I teach my undergraduate students that is is "true"). Instead, my argument is that the theory of macroevolution is corroborated by evidence systematics (i.e. comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and more recently, comparative biochemistry). . . . . If "the background knowledge of descent with modification" underlying cladistics is not testable by independent means . . ."

So while the title, "Evolution is Not a Necessary Assumption of Cladistics", seems to support the Discovery Institute's mandate of "overturning evolutionary theory" . . . the paper basically states the exact opposite!

More deceptive cons from the good folks at the Discovery Institute.

The article about Miller is not new tactic either . . . He was the main witness for the prosecution at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Trial, in which the Discovery Institute was made to look like fools for trying to pass off "Intelligent Design" as having a scientific basis. The D.I.'s poster boy and main witness, Micheal Behe, even admitted under oath that he had no real evidence for his idea (and one that most ID and Creationists use) of "Irreducible Complexity" and that there were actually several peer reviewed papers that have already refuted this idea. He also admitted that these ideas rested in his religious beliefs . . . not science.

From . . . Phillip Johnson, founder of the Discovery Institute (with Meyer, Behe, and Dembski):

The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of my book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself.

If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this... We call our strategy the "wedge.

To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning." He goes on to state: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.

cont . . .

a reply to: solomons path
Continued from above (Philip Johnson)

So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

Wedge Stategy wiki

NOTE: The most important aspect of this organizations goal is the last quote . . .
This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy.

I would also be happy to post the actual document that outlines their strategy, which rests in deception and subterfuge through the media, political leaders, and school boards, if you like?

a reply to: hydeman11




Hello again hydeman,
I have quoted a section of your last post to me.

And I do not mean to be rude, but I must admit that I am skeptical of claims made by the Discovery Institute. I don't trust most scientists on a non-academic payroll, but I am especially skeptical of those on a payroll without mainstream peer-review processes to check claims.

I do not mean to be rude either but I don't trust most scientist on a academic payroll.
Why?
Because they have a reason to present evidence, there is motive there to present only what is "accepted as fact" whether it is fact or not.
As for being peer reviewed, its laughable. The only papers that will ever get peer reviewed are those that do not go against the norm. It does not matter if the math and science in the paper are soundn if it goes against evolution it is sidelined.
I never claimed that the link to the paper I provided was peer reviewed. To me it's not so much about who wrote the paper as it is the actual content of the paper.
We have quite a few on this site, like Solomonspath, who take a look at a paper and dismiss it out of hand. They will not debate what is actually in the paper. Instead they attack who wrote it.
This is the norm even with scientific journals. Any mention of I.D. or Creation and the writer is pretty much black balled. We even see this with papers that do not mention I.D. but refute parts of evolution. And if an editor lets one slip through? Oh well, better start looking for another job.
It is as plain as day for those who choose to look.

originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont see enough valid evidence for either
People believe humans developed from primates over time, dont believe it.
People believe over time a single cell organism developed all the way up to a human, dont believe it
I believe a bird can grow a longer beak, but it is still a bird, dogs can be bread to have different types of dogs, but they are still dogs.

People believe that genetic mutations produce positive dna changes, dont believe it. I havnt seen any xmen running around.

I dont believe micro evolution leads to macro evolution, I dont believe its ever been seen in nature

Hows that?

Irrespective you are talking about biological evolution, please dont dismiss Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen, Stellar and Planetary Evolution the origin of stars and planets, Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

They are of more importance to me than biological evolution, simply because they all come before supposed biological evolution.

I understand why you want to frame this discussion around biological evolution, but I dont.

I am not here to win an argument, be converted to evolution, I am only here to say why I dont believe that evolution (for want of a better word) is acceptable to me and many others

First, micro and macro evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution DOES NOT MEAN "The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species." If you can find that definition listed on ANY SCIENTIFIC site anywhere, it would be different, but you essentially made that one up or took it from Hovind. Kind is not a scientific term. Could you please give a logical argument against macro evolution, that explains precisely WHY changes cannot add up over time. You seem to keep insinuating that a dog will suddenly turn into a cat, but that's not how it works. A dog will turn into a slightly different dog, that turns into a slightly different dog, until after a million or so of these changes they can be classified as another species. They don't just morph into a cat or grow wings suddenly. Please explain why changes cannot add up.

I'm not trying to "convert" you to anything. I just want to understand your position, because as of now, it doesn't make any sense, because you are attacking several different fields of scientific study at once rather than focusing on them individually and you are calling them evolution in an attempt to say that any type of "evolution" is wrong except micro.

Let's go one by one.

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

science.nasa.gov...

You can ask what caused it, but nobody knows the answer yet, so it doesn't prove anything a all, but big bang is "universally" accepted, just like gravity. Scientists don't fully understand gravity yet, but it is a known phenomenon. We might not know exactly how gravity originated, but it's there and it can't be denied. Just like the big bang and biological evolution. Couldn't god have used the big bang as a creation tool?

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

en.wikipedia.org...

The answer is nucleosynthesis. Having enough energy in an explosion can rearrange atoms. Supernovae are the reason many of the heavier elements were formed. Couldn't god have created nucleosynthesis?

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

www.worldscientific.com... - formation of stars

cosmosmagazine.com... - formation of planets, backed by evidence

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

There are plenty of hypotheses on this. We don't know the answer for sure yet, but it doesn't prove any type of evolution wrong. Couldn't god have created life and used evolution as a tool to eventually bring humans into the mix?

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

This definition is completely wrong, so I'm not touching it. I addressed this one above, so if you can actually use proper terminology and explain why this is not possible that would be great. You also have to say more than "I don't see the evidence." We know this, but that doesn't make it wrong. Explain precisely why changes cannot add up over time. Simple, right?

There you have it. I have addressed every single concern in the OP. If you could form a rebuttal that addresses my counter points and my links posted, I'd appreciate it. I just don't see why you are so against those various areas of study and why it conflicts with your faith. The science could simply be how god does his work. It seems a little limiting to suggest that he'd create life magically rather than have a complex process that we can't fully comprehend.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. In all actuality the fossil record does not look like a tree as many claim. Most fossils show up intact and fully formed. We speculate what the precursors were and we form the "tree" to follow those speculations. It is assumption on our part. It may very well be completely different.

That's like saying that thunder storms do not support the theory of electro magnetism, they only support the theory of Thor. The fossil record supports it, 100%. Not a single out of place fossil has been found. Evolution doesn't have half breeds of common ancestors. That's not how it works. You aren't going to find an exact half human - half ancient ape. But then again, when you find a fossil that has both modern human and modern chimp features, it is direct evidence, and we have tons upon tons of fossils like this. What do you say about Tiktaalik? Coincidence? Even though fossilization is rare, there have been so many trillions of creatures to inhabit this earth over the years, that it's guaranteed we find many of them and we have. We keep filling in more and more gaps as more fossils are found, and strangely enough each and every one fits perfectly into the tree. How do you explain that without denial of scientific methods?

Because they have a reason to present evidence, there is motive there to present only what is "accepted as fact" whether it is fact or not.

The average person does not understand the complexities of the scientific studies that scientists experiment with. This is why scientists try to dumb it down for the public to paint a picture that is on their level of understanding. The picture they paint is the most likely scenario based on evidence. The dumbed down picture is not always exactly 100% accurate, but the evidence it's based on is solid.

As for being peer reviewed, its laughable. The only papers that will ever get peer reviewed are those that do not go against the norm.

That's complete BS. Journals have very strict standards of peer review before publication, because if they publish something and somebody repeats the study and gets different results, they will look bad and be completely discredited. They don't take peer review lightly, and you shouldn't either. It's not just a bunch of evil guys in black suits in a dark room laughing and agreeing with each other. I mean what would they gain by falsifying evolution to the level that they have? I mean that's TONS and TONS of faked evidence, fake fossils, fake mapped genomes, etc etc etc. Anybody can become a scientist and try to debunk any study out there. People would have figured it out by now if it were all faked. There is nothing to gain and a conspiracy of that magnitude would require thousands upon thousands of scientists all pretending to work while actually faking everything about biology, despite hundreds of new young scientists entering the field every year thinking it's true. It doesn't make the least bit of sense. Somebody that knows what they are talking about would have blown the whistle by now.

It does not matter if the math and science in the paper are soundn if it goes against evolution it is sidelined.

You have evidence of this? Math or science that goes against evolution? Where? I've been asking for that for years! I'm going to need a link on that one.

This is the norm even with scientific journals. Any mention of I.D. or Creation and the writer is pretty much black balled.

It's been long established that ID is not scientific because you cannot observe or recreate any part of the supernatural. If we find a way one day to experiment inter-dimensionally and do god tests, it can become a scientific theory. It's impossible to experiment on, every ID paper I've read is based on speculation about what "appears" to be designed. There is no direct way to experiment on that, so it's not science and therefor not published. If ID proponents could find a way to do experiments on this that don't involve numerous assumptions to prove design, they could start to gain ground in the scientific community, but thus far nobody can do it. That doesn't mean it's wrong of course, but to suggest those papers are scientifically valid or that they prove anything would be false because there are no experiments that can even be done to confirm any of it. It's just a guess based on complexity.

Now if you know something I don't, please let me know, because I don't want to be kept in the dark if there are actual scientific papers on ID out there that hold weight.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Because they have a reason to present evidence, there is motive there to present only what is "accepted as fact" whether it is fact or not.
As for being peer reviewed, its laughable. The only papers that will ever get peer reviewed are those that do not go against the norm. It does not matter if the math and science in the paper are soundn if it goes against evolution it is sidelined.

That's quite the assertion. Care to back that up with any evidence that doesn't come from Discovery Institute or a Christian apologetics website touting creationism?

I never claimed that the link to the paper I provided was peer reviewed. To me it's not so much about who wrote the paper as it is the actual content of the paper.

Problem is . . . You didn't link to a "paper". You linked to an article who's only support came from the author of the article and quote mining actual papers that he misrepresents. And, on top of that, his only citation (at the bottom) was fraudulent as it had NOTHING to do with his article. I didn't dismiss that article outright . . . I went to every link/citation provided. However, I was not surprised to find the author's "scholarship" deceptive based on where it was published.

We have quite a few on this site, like Solomonspath, who take a look at a paper and dismiss it out of hand. They will not debate what is actually in the paper. Instead they attack who wrote it.

You obviously didn't read my posts. I went through the article and followed up on all citations and links included. Furthermore, the Discovery Institute's reputation is well known. That is why their only tactic is to try to "bring down evolution" and NEVER have offered evidence of their own for I.D. I was also very specific as to how they operate, even providing direct quotes from their primary founder. BTW - Philip Johnson is a lawyer . . . he has NO scientific background. I guess you don't want a link to the actual "Wedge" document that outlines how they will con and lie to the public to support their cause, then?

You also seem more than willfully ignorant to the quote from those that "invented" the term "intelligent design" and its main promoters that the "movement" has nothing to do with science and is strictly about "religion and philosophy". Yet, you somehow know that there is actually science behind it, even those that came up with this theory state otherwise? You should submit your work to the Nobel committee.

This is the norm even with scientific journals. Any mention of I.D. or Creation and the writer is pretty much black balled. We even see this with papers that do not mention I.D. but refute parts of evolution. And if an editor lets one slip through? Oh well, better start looking for another job.
It is as plain as day for those who choose to look.

Another grand assertion and absolute myth promoted by the Discovery Institute and Christian apologetics sites. Again, where is your evidence outside of this. Let me guess . . . the movie "Expelled" with Ben Stein? A movie that was funded by the Discovery Institute and made by the media and marketing company they own in Canada? All false claims and if you want to get specific, I can tell you the real story of how those individuals lost or (in most cases) left their positions (FYI . . . it had nothing to do with their "beliefs").

Sorry I'm here trying to uphold this site's motto: Deny Ignorance. You'd rather seem to wallow in it . . . sad.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I will admit, I have not read the entire thread. With that said, if no new evidence about the fossil record has been presented, in the past few days, then it would probably be the same regurgitated responses.
You are incorrect in your assumption that I do not know or am familiar with the "theory". I find that most times I understand it better than many who claim to follow it.
The fossil record does not support the theory as many people claim. There really is no reason to get personal about it.
I understand that you have been told countless times that the fossil record supports evolution......but have YOU ever seen this evidence? It is simple to say "it has been showed, many times" yet another thing all together to actually show where and how.

Tell you the truth, I doubt that you even know what 'theory' in science really means, at least that is what you showing with posts like this.

For years I've spent here, I've seen lots of misconception regarding theory of evolution, and most of those are similar. Just like in your post, you proclaimed that fossil record does not support ToE. I am sure that comes from one of many creationist web sites that tried to use this as argument. Problem is that fossil record completely support ToE, but you will never know about it, because you start from 'belief' and don't really care for facts, do you?

Prove me wrong, go through following link and after reading tell me more why don't you believe that fossil records support ToE.

Berkley - Misconceptions about evolution

a reply to: Quadrivium

This is the norm even with scientific journals. Any mention of I.D. or Creation and the writer is pretty much black balled. We even see this with papers that do not mention I.D. but refute parts of evolution. And if an editor lets one slip through? Oh well, better start looking for another job.
It is as plain as day for those who choose to look.

One more thing to add to this bit of fantasy . . .

If any of this were true and not I.D./creationist propaganda . . . How do you explain Michael Behe? He invented "irreducible complexity" (well, at least the microbiological version, since it is just a re-working of the "watchmaker's fallacy"), co-founded the I.D. movement in '92, co-founded the Discovery Institute, and has wrote several books on I.D. . . . YET, he is a tenured professor of microbiology at Lehigh University. He hasn't been "blackballed", as he has published actual papers, in legitimate journals, in his field, that have nothing to do with I.D. He still holds a position in academia . . . so, why hasn't the poster boy for the I.D. movement been "fired" or "blackballed". Some conspiracy that mainstream science has going when they let the one of the most damaging proponents of the movement move freely among them. I guess those "science guys" really are dumb . . . huh?

Or how about Dr. Paul Davies, at my alma mater Arizona State University? Not only does he believe and talk about "intelligent design", but he thinks our DNA was programmed by aliens!! Aliens and belief in a "creator" . . . that's the double whammy! Yet, not only does he remain a well respected cosmologist/physicist, but ASU has let him start and direct Beyond Center, an interdisciplinary research group that explores our origins and melds philosophy and science. Working along such mainstream "scientists" as Lawrence Krauss (physics and ASU professor) and Donald Johanson (co-finder of Lucy and head of ASU's Institute of Human Origins). Again . . . why haven't they fired that guy?

Our Goal: Bring together scientists and philosophers from all disciplines to brainstorm some of the age-old questions of existence, using the latest ideas and discoveries at the forefront of scientific research. Develop new experimental and theoretical research projects that change the way scientists think about foundational questions.

Seems it is not so . . . "plain as day" when someone actually choose's to look, ay?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: hydeman11




Hello again hydeman,
I have quoted a section of your last post to me.

And I do not mean to be rude, but I must admit that I am skeptical of claims made by the Discovery Institute. I don't trust most scientists on a non-academic payroll, but I am especially skeptical of those on a payroll without mainstream peer-review processes to check claims.

I do not mean to be rude either but I don't trust most scientist on a academic payroll.
Why?
Because they have a reason to present evidence, there is motive there to present only what is "accepted as fact" whether it is fact or not.
As for being peer reviewed, its laughable. The only papers that will ever get peer reviewed are those that do not go against the norm. It does not matter if the math and science in the paper are soundn if it goes against evolution it is sidelined.
I never claimed that the link to the paper I provided was peer reviewed. To me it's not so much about who wrote the paper as it is the actual content of the paper.
We have quite a few on this site, like Solomonspath, who take a look at a paper and dismiss it out of hand. They will not debate what is actually in the paper. Instead they attack who wrote it.
This is the norm even with scientific journals. Any mention of I.D. or Creation and the writer is pretty much black balled. We even see this with papers that do not mention I.D. but refute parts of evolution. And if an editor lets one slip through? Oh well, better start looking for another job.
It is as plain as day for those who choose to look.

First, let me not attack non-academic scientists, but defend academic scientists. I personally know several (lucky enough to go to a small university, where we can interact with and talk freely with our professors) in my field and out of it. They work hard, trying to creatively design experiments to better understand the data they've collected or to collect entirely new data.

But you are simply wrong with your claim that scientists need to present data that conforms to what is "known." Scientists are constantly questioning the "known" models. Scientists get paid for discovering new things, not regurgitating what has already been discovered. If a scientist showed conclusive evidence to disprove evolution, they would immediately be given multiple job offers by the best universities to come teach their students. It would be global news, they might get a Nobel Prize for their discovery (with something as big as evolution, they would). Remember how we discussed phylogenetic gradualism (slow evolution by gradual changes) rapidly being combated by the new model of punctuated equilibrium? Parts of evolution (like competition as the main mode of natural selection) are constantly being questioned and the theory is constantly being changed. Refutation of the theory DOES occur in mainstream science. Scientists get money by discovering new things. By presenting new data, new models that better fit reality and observations. The fact that evolution as a theory has stood the test of time (only changing in fine detail, not outright refutations) is a testament to how closely it fits observed reality.

However, I agree. Content means more than a name anyday. But if that name does not have a degree in the field of study, I am inherently skeptical of the claims that person makes. I wouldn't trust a plumber to be my lawyer should I have legal troubles, but maybe one case in a thousand that plumber is in fact qualified to be a lawyer. But probability dictates that should I choose any one plumber from a thousand, I have 999/1000 of getting a plumber who will give me a nonsensical defense.

Now, to talk about earlier issues...
After much thought and a good night's rest, I think I've come to a better understanding of what you must in fact be arguing for. Please correct me if I'm wrong, my mind is still groggy from lack of coffee, but I think this might help clarify the issue...
You are not arguing against the appearance of new species in different geologic time periods/strata, yes? You noted with the last few posts that "species appear in the fossil record pretty much completely formed" as I recall... You also correctly noted that most "transitional forms" are closely related (how closely can be debated) non-direct ancestors of other organisms that denote the changes that likely would have happened if an organism did evolve. Noting this, I'm left with a puzzling thought...
It appears that most organisms that have ever lived, most species, many genuses, a lot of orders... A lot of things have gone extinct. They are limited to set periods in the fossil record. Unless you discount geology (and if you do, please note I am far better versed in geology than in biology or paleontology ) you must be left with one conclusion... Something creates new species that share multiple traits with species that previously died constantly throughout geologic time. It cannot be the case that these species are merely the same species that change form, adapting to their environment, as these morphological similarities can be traced through higher taxa, genus level, at least, using those "transitional forms." It must also be the case that entirely new taxa (I'm talking as high as Kingdom level) must have been spontaneously poofed into existence to be consistent with the fossil record. Land plants do not appear in the fossil record until about 450 mya, so how did they come to be without gradual change that would be equivalent to evolution?

originally posted by: Barcs

First, micro and macro evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution DOES NOT MEAN "The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species." If you can find that definition listed on ANY SCIENTIFIC site anywhere, it would be different, but you essentially made that one up or took it from Hovind. Kind is not a scientific term. Could you please give a logical argument against macro evolution, that explains precisely WHY changes cannot add up over time. You seem to keep insinuating that a dog will suddenly turn into a cat, but that's not how it works. A dog will turn into a slightly different dog, that turns into a slightly different dog, until after a million or so of these changes they can be classified as another species. They don't just morph into a cat or grow wings suddenly. Please explain why changes cannot add up.

I'm not trying to "convert" you to anything. I just want to understand your position, because as of now, it doesn't make any sense, because you are attacking several different fields of scientific study at once rather than focusing on them individually and you are calling them evolution in an attempt to say that any type of "evolution" is wrong except micro.

Let's go one by one.

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

science.nasa.gov...

You can ask what caused it, but nobody knows the answer yet, so it doesn't prove anything a all, but big bang is "universally" accepted, just like gravity. Scientists don't fully understand gravity yet, but it is a known phenomenon. We might not know exactly how gravity originated, but it's there and it can't be denied. Just like the big bang and biological evolution. Couldn't god have used the big bang as a creation tool?

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

en.wikipedia.org...

The answer is nucleosynthesis. Having enough energy in an explosion can rearrange atoms. Supernovae are the reason many of the heavier elements were formed. Couldn't god have created nucleosynthesis?

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

www.worldscientific.com... - formation of stars

cosmosmagazine.com... - formation of planets, backed by evidence

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

There are plenty of hypotheses on this. We don't know the answer for sure yet, but it doesn't prove any type of evolution wrong. Couldn't god have created life and used evolution as a tool to eventually bring humans into the mix?

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

This definition is completely wrong, so I'm not touching it. I addressed this one above, so if you can actually use proper terminology and explain why this is not possible that would be great. You also have to say more than "I don't see the evidence." We know this, but that doesn't make it wrong. Explain precisely why changes cannot add up over time. Simple, right?

There you have it. I have addressed every single concern in the OP. If you could form a rebuttal that addresses my counter points and my links posted, I'd appreciate it. I just don't see why you are so against those various areas of study and why it conflicts with your faith. The science could simply be how god does his work. It seems a little limiting to suggest that he'd create life magically rather than have a complex process that we can't fully comprehend.

Thankyou for addressing those issues, I appreciate the effort, though I am aware of your answers.

My issue is that they are all theory, so scientists have built theory on top of theory and shazam, we get answers, well the answers you give me, answers that I see as theory.

Yes God could have, may well have used the BB and the other systems to guide evolution.
I dont believe that, the evidence isnt solid enough

Limiting God? No, never mind how God created, He did a good job, we stuffed it up

a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

Borntowatch, I understand your skepticism. I like to be skeptical, too. I think more people should be more skeptical of more things, in general. (Or else why would I be on a conspiracy site in the first place?) But your level of skepticism towards the entirety of scientific theories is perhaps an unhealthy level. Perhaps.

Let me explain, science makes models on what is observed. If it is not an observable natural phenomena, it will never be part of a scientific theory. Because of this, an interfering god (one that changes the laws of natures to produce miracles) is a possibility, but one that cannot be part of science, because it breaks one of the assumptions of science as a philosophy. (1. The world around you is real. 2. You can know something about it. 3. The observed laws of nature are consistent.) So using only the evidence available, those theories are the best models of reality known to man, the ones built upon the most solid foundations with mountains of observations. Yes, they're made by fallible humans, yes there are minor problems with the details. But if this were a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cat, and you happen to be missing about 20 randomly placed pieces, all evidence would still point to the big picture as a cat.

Cheers.

Barcs,
Could not get the quote function to work. It kept chopping up the post, so I will go old school.
You said:
"First, micro and macro evolution are exactly the same. Macro evolution DOES NOT MEAN "The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species." If you can find that definition listed on ANY SCIENTIFIC site anywhere, it would be different, but you essentially made that one up or took it from Hovind."
Response:
From talkorigins, a site you have quoted on numerous occasions.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

www.talkorigins.org...
I will answer answer the other post tomorrow. It's been a long day and tomorrow is not going to be any shorter.

ETA: I understand that this section of your post had to to with "kind of species" kind could easily mean type.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

Borntowatch, I understand your skepticism. I like to be skeptical, too. I think more people should be more skeptical of more things, in general. (Or else why would I be on a conspiracy site in the first place?) But your level of skepticism towards the entirety of scientific theories is perhaps an unhealthy level. Perhaps.

Let me explain, science makes models on what is observed. If it is not an observable natural phenomena, it will never be part of a scientific theory. Because of this, an interfering god (one that changes the laws of natures to produce miracles) is a possibility, but one that cannot be part of science, because it breaks one of the assumptions of science as a philosophy. (1. The world around you is real. 2. You can know something about it. 3. The observed laws of nature are consistent.) So using only the evidence available, those theories are the best models of reality known to man, the ones built upon the most solid foundations with mountains of observations. Yes, they're made by fallible humans, yes there are minor problems with the details. But if this were a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cat, and you happen to be missing about 20 randomly placed pieces, all evidence would still point to the big picture as a cat.

Cheers.

Its a million piece jigsaw and 900000 pieces are missing. You have a picture of a cat and are making the pieces look like a cat.
Minor problems, hmmm. I dont know about minor

I accept why you believe in evolution, I dont.

You cant win me over with the evidence as it stands, my point is why cant you accept my unbelief in evolution as much as I accept your belief in evolution.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

Hello,

Borntowatch, I understand your skepticism. I like to be skeptical, too. I think more people should be more skeptical of more things, in general. (Or else why would I be on a conspiracy site in the first place?) But your level of skepticism towards the entirety of scientific theories is perhaps an unhealthy level. Perhaps.

Let me explain, science makes models on what is observed. If it is not an observable natural phenomena, it will never be part of a scientific theory. Because of this, an interfering god (one that changes the laws of natures to produce miracles) is a possibility, but one that cannot be part of science, because it breaks one of the assumptions of science as a philosophy. (1. The world around you is real. 2. You can know something about it. 3. The observed laws of nature are consistent.) So using only the evidence available, those theories are the best models of reality known to man, the ones built upon the most solid foundations with mountains of observations. Yes, they're made by fallible humans, yes there are minor problems with the details. But if this were a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cat, and you happen to be missing about 20 randomly placed pieces, all evidence would still point to the big picture as a cat.

Cheers.

Its a million piece jigsaw and 900000 pieces are missing. You have a picture of a cat and are making the pieces look like a cat.
Minor problems, hmmm. I dont know about minor

I accept why you believe in evolution, I dont.

You cant win me over with the evidence as it stands, my point is why cant you accept my unbelief in evolution as much as I accept your belief in evolution.

I think that the point is that there is so much evidence for evolution that it's hard comprehend why someone would either fail to understand it or worse still ignore it because it goes against their religion. It smacks of fanaticism and a wilfully closed mind.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Honestly there is no point, this thread has gone around in ciircles and Borntowatch will never accept any evidence whatso ever.
Like you said blinded by religion and ignorance.

Funny thing is many religions accept evolution as fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Is it just me or is it mostly American Christians whom are ignorant?. Every Christian I know here in the UK accept evolution as fact also.

a reply to: borntowatch

"What is evolution, not what some think"

I imagine our concept of evolution is simply humanity's interpretation of change over an extended period of time.

Probably be able to determine more regarding evolution when we have observed it for a few thousand years. Considering we simply have not had the observational skills as a species long enough to understand the processes at work.

a reply to: andy06shake

We have seen it though happen in real time through study.
listverse.com...