Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: peter vlar

It's ok, we can take up the conversation tomorrow.

I never had children but I can show empathy. I will look more tomorrow, because it is quite late to read tonight. I have Dyslexia and have reached the limit for now.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The only thing devolving here is your argument. You keep drastically altering what you are trying to say and backtracking out of each faulty argument that you use to support your premise. You are merely demonstrating your lack of understanding of evolution.

First, why would you expect Polynesians to have become aquatic? What environmental changes have forced this? Something like a transition from land to sea takes MILLIONS of years, but you expect Polynesians to do it in thousands? Whales took 60 million plus years to become aquatic and even today they can't breathe underwater. I'd ask you to explain this, but I know you won't.

So my point was, given that species are considered populations, and species are subject to evolution, then it can only occur at the individual level, even though evolution is counted at the population level. So if a group of people are naturally adapted through random means, then human population groups must have been adapted for specific geographic regions, individually.

Your point still makes no logical sense. Individual traits become group traits. I clearly demonstrated this. You are confusing standard adaptation to long term adaptation in evolution. They are not the same. If I go try to live in the African jungle right now, I'll have to adapt to it or die. That is a single individual changing his lifestyle to adapt to the circumstances. That is not physically changing DNA to survive over hundreds of generations with various environmental changes.

Humans are adapted to planet earth. We are very intelligent and our ability to use our hands makes us capable of surviving numerous environments. You are neglecting the fact that we did not always have technology and loads of knowledge on hand to do this. If I went to live in Africa right now with no technology, sun tan lotion, or knowledge of the area, there's a good chance I die of skin cancer, if I don't die from food poisoning or get killed by a predator first. Africans are better adapted to Africa because they survived there for 70,000-200,000 years. They have higher melanin content in their skin to protect from skin cancer. I am better suited for a cooler environment without sun beating down on me for a large portion of the day. Technology and knowledge of the world changes things.

Creatures adapt TO their environment. They aren't designed ahead of time to fit in a given place.

And if this happened, was it because of environment or did it happened before they encountered the new environments?

The mutations happen first, the selection happens 2nd. You seem to be having difficulty grasping this concept. Let's take mice for example. Let's say one out of every ten field mice are born with black fur. The rest are born with brown fur. Their environment is a wheat field. This is a group of individuals living and breeding in this environment. The brown mice are much better protected from predators because they are more difficult to see. Therefor the black mice frequently get picked off by hawks, snakes and other hunters. This is why 9/10 are born brown. The black mice rarely get to pass down that gene.

One day lightning strikes and a fire starts. The entire field gets burned down and everything is reduce to ash and burned rocks. Now, take a wild guess which mouse will have the advantage? Obviously the black fur. Now the brown mice are the worst adapted and get feasted on by predators. The rest of the brown mice either vacate or don't pass down the genes. Over dozens of generations, the black mice take over. Since the black mice are dominating now, the ratio at birth becomes 9/10 are born with black fir while just 1/10 has the brown. Both genes are there, but one dominates the gene pool while the other does not, since more black mice are breeding, there will be more offspring with that trait.

This is a perfect example of individuals with a single different trait (fur color) adapting to the new environment. They don't change because the environment does, the non adapted ones die. Now of course that field could very well grow back one day and if that happens, there's a good chance the brown mice take it over. Evolution is not linear and "well adapted" can be incredibly temporary. Think of ancient human adaptation in the same way.

In humans, a Caucasian isn't going to live in Africa and suddenly turn black. These type of changes take thousands upon thousands of generations. You seem to think it happens over night or within a single lifetime.

This is part of the problem with the words, "nature selects". If it is random, then it is not selection. If it is selection, then it can't be a random process.

I don't know if you're just ignoring my post content but I've stated numerous times already that Natural selection is NOT RANDOM. The only thing random is the gene mutations from generation to generation. Did Dawkins live in Africa without sun tan lotion or knowledge of the area? Humans are intelligent enough to overcome those kind of things with intelligence and technology. Other species are not. I don't think I can explain this any clearer.

a reply to: WarminIndy

i believe in DE-evolution and the world is proving my theory every sing day. It's the 21st century and we're still killing each other. A handful of people own most of the # worth owning. It's like we regressed into friggin morlocks.

Complacency or idiocracy? You be the judge.

Argumentum ad populum - this logical fallacy is that on this thread the claims have been made that religion is detrimental

originally posted by: Barcs
Who is arguing that religion is detrimental because the majority believe that? I'd say the majority do not even believe that because the majority of the world is religious. Appeal to popularity means that you claim something is true because most folks believe it. IE modern pop music is the best music of all time because it sells the highest would be this fallacy.

This could be referring to the studies showing the more religion proliferates in a (otherwise 1st world) country/society the more it has in common with and resembles the societal conditions found in the 2nd/3rd world. More religion = more social ill health and vice versa. They show what is happening, not necessarily how or why.

Hardly an appeal to popularity (particularly in the US) or a fallacy. Some of the figures indicate that religion could be a cause of some of these conditions, as well as a result of poor conditions overall. Or it could be something else. There is an obviously close relationship between the two. The op seems to think all of the data backing it up can be ignored if they don't believe it...fallacy = whatever doesn't support your belief lol.

Rather ironic to claim being bombarded with fallacies, given the nature of the thread to date.

originally posted by: Tangerine

This is a game she plays. My suggestion is to not feed into it.

Pose bogus problems to do with evolution, accept no explanations that aren't based on your own interpretation, divert, misrepresent whatever you can to support, then pose everything that has already been answered...again, rinse, repeat....

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

You have provided no evidence for your claim about religion. Please provide links.

The second thing is that you are assuming that brown field mice will all be eaten by predators, but at the same time you prove that mutations are not random, because of the way information is processed within the genome itself.

Every field mouse will still have genetic markers that have brown fur, yet the black fur gene is expressed in the phenotype, but the genotype still contains the information of brown fur. Something therefore causes the expression of black fur, even though it still carries the brown fur gene.

Evolution 101

An organism’s genotype is the set of genes that it carries. An organism’s phenotype is all of its observable characteristics—which are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment

If a phenotype is influenced by both environment and genotype, then it cannot be random, because the response to take care of the problem of being eaten was not random, it was a direct response. Therefore the brown field mice would have have to adapt because of prior knowledge that they would be eaten, therefore this knowledge determined to change the phenotype as a means of protection.

That implies a level of understanding and knowledge. The genes themselves cannot mutate to protect unless there was knowledge to begin with. So the assumption is that they mutate for that protective measure. Is there empirical evidence that support the theory that random mutations evolve for the purpose of protection?

If the end result is protection, then the mutations occurred for that purpose. Let's look at this logically...

1: Field mice have a particular phenotype
2: Some field mice are brown, some are black
3: Brown field mice and black field mice live in a population
4: Both brown and black field mice can be eaten by predators

If all of these are true, then a protective measure is implemented to protect the entire population of field mice, with the assumption that if lightning strikes and a field is burned then the brown mice will be eaten by predators. But brown mice still exist. Why didn't all of the field mice turn black if the threat of danger exists?

And where does the threat come from? Environmental. But random mutations could not answer for that because there are both, and not only that, white and albino. What protection is proffered for albino mice?

Therefore it can't be simple environmental reasons. The genome of field mice still contain all the genetic markers, yet only some are expressed in the genome. What causes expression?

If expression is the result of environmental information, hence, meaning it comes from outside the gene, then it cannot be random if it is a response to environmental information. For it to be random, then the black field mice might just be incredibly lucky.

However, it is still a response to environmental information. There have been brown field mice and black field mice since there have been field mice. So we have to question this logically, if the original field mice ( and we don't know the color of the first field mouse) were exposed to danger, the information of that would have imprinted into the genome the necessity of mutating to be black as a protective measure, then the mutation cannot be random. If it is imprinted, then it is passed along, making the black field mouse more lucky. And yet, within the genome itself, there are still black and brown markers.

Genetics. org

A powerful tool for monitoring gene expression in parallel is cDNA microarray technology. At present, microarrays are being used for improving our knowledge about disease classification as well as for unraveling complex genetic regulation networks

No longer does Lamarckan definitions work because it has been proven that the processes within the genome are complex networks. This means that the entire genome functions as an information sharing network within the various cells.

In the almost complete absence of real data that combine marker and gene expression data, a fundamental problem is how to simulate a “realistic,” or at least plausible, data set reflecting as much as possible the actual complexity of correlation between expression levels.

And to assume the black field mice are safer because of environmental factors

This corresponds with the cautionary correlations or associations found with microarray experiments should not be viewed as cause-effect relationships

Therefore, predators and fires should not be viewed as cause-effect relationships of genetic mutations. But logically the cause should occur first, hence, the threat of danger. But if the mutations are random that lead to better protection, then no danger existed to begin with. The genome then had prior knowledge.

Neurodegeneration Specific Gene-Expression of Microglia

Just so you know what microglia are, some people might not know.

Microglia are resident immune cells of the CNS that are activated by infection, neuronal injury, and inflammation.

Again, this would be a protective measure, occurring in isolated cells, but part of the wider information sharing network.

Microglia are motile cells that dynamically survey the CNS parenchyma for invading pathogens and cell death (Nimmerjahn et al., 2005). In addition, microglia actively participate in synaptic pruning during development (Schafer et al., 2012). In response to tissue injury, microglia undergo a rapid transition from resting, ramified forms to amoeboid morphologies (Davalos et al., 2005). At present, little is known about the molecular changes that occur in microglia during their activation, and whether these changes are beneficial or harmful to neuron survival. Specific transcriptional responses of microglia may vary depending on the neuropathological condition and type of molecular stimuli encountered

Even at that level, there is nothing random or anything that suggests randomness if it actively participates in preventing death.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The second thing is that you are assuming that brown field mice will all be eaten by predators, but at the same time you prove that mutations are not random, because of the way information is processed within the genome itself.

I didn't say that all brown mice will be eaten. The survival rate will be much lower and that's very basic logic. If you have a better natural defense against predators by blending into the background, you will be safer. This isn't rocket science.

The field mouse example was a demonstration of natural selection, and dominant / recessive genes. Not genetic mutations. They are not on equal grounds. But please by all means, explain where the black fur trait came from in the first place? That's where genetic mutations come into play. Black fur (or maybe brown fur) originated in a genetic mutation that may have been in a single individual. Slowly it got mixed into the genome.

If a phenotype is influenced by both environment and genotype, then it cannot be random, because the response to take care of the problem of being eaten was not random, it was a direct response. Therefore the brown field mice would have have to adapt because of prior knowledge that they would be eaten, therefore this knowledge determined to change the phenotype as a means of protection.

This is false. It is not influenced by the environment directly. It is not a direct response. The brown mice pass down less genes, and as a result there are less of them. Nothing actually changes except which genes are dominant. The origin of the black fur, however is the random part, from when that mutation first happened. Natural selection is not random in the least and has a much greater influence than the genetic mutations themselves.

That implies a level of understanding and knowledge. The genes themselves cannot mutate to protect unless there was knowledge to begin with. So the assumption is that they mutate for that protective measure. Is there empirical evidence that support the theory that random mutations evolve for the purpose of protection?

They don't evolve for the purpose of protection. They evolve randomly and then the environment changes so that these mutations are favorable over others.

Why didn't all of the field mice turn black if the threat of danger exists?

Because that's not how evolution works. The brown mice don't turn black, less of them are born.

Therefore it can't be simple environmental reasons. The genome of field mice still contain all the genetic markers, yet only some are expressed in the genome. What causes expression?

Dominant genes.

There have been brown field mice and black field mice since there have been field mice.

Can you prove this statement?

Genetic mutations ARE random. They have been measure in humans and other great apes in their genome from one generation to the next.

I don't claim to be an expert in genetics, but I do know quite a bit about evolution. Hopefully somebody that understand genetics a bit better can explain this to you. I think you are over analyzing.

i thought these were supposed to be simple questions and not the spanish inquisition.

a reply to: Barcs

I believe you made a false statement when you said environment plays no direct influence on the genome...you are wrong in that.

Environmental Influences in Gene Expression

The expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism. One major internal environmental influence that affects gene expression is gender, as is the case with sex-influenced and sex-limited traits. Similarly, drugs, chemicals, temperature, and light are among the external environmental factors that can determine which genes are turned on and off, thereby influencing the way an organism develops and functions.

I think this is called epigenetics.....

As these examples illustrate, there are many specific instances of environmental influences on gene expression. However, it is important to keep in mind that there is a very complex interaction between our genes and our environment that defines our phenotype and who we are.

Environmental Effects on Phenotype

Surprisingly, environmental components were able to account for most of the positional variation in gene expression changes. Genetic variation, although responsible for much expression variation, does not seem to contribute to the regional biases in it. These findings support the key role of epigenetics, adding to a growing body of evidence that it mediates the translation of environmental signals into biochemical changes.

Please, share with us again how environment does not influence genomes. You said it does not directly influence, certainly environment does directly.

www.sciencemag.org...

So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612). Whether histone modifications (and many noncoding RNAs) are epigenetic is debated; it is likely that relatively few of these modifications or RNAs will be self-perpetuating and inherited. Looking beyond DNA-associated molecules, prions (infectious proteins) are clearly epigenetic, perpetuating themselves through altered folding states. These states can act as sensors of environmental stress and, through the phenotypic changes they promote, potentially drive evolution (Halfmann and Lindquist, p. 629).

We could certainly talk about epigenetics if you wish. How do you think this all relates to the genome and how does it make a species go from one to another when even metabolic systems are so different?

a reply to: WarminIndy

My statement was correct because the post I responded to was suggesting that the field mice fur color was a response to the environment. This was not true. I was referring to the mice. I'm aware that stress can cause balding and that drugs can cause certain changes in creatures, but we're talking about evolution. These are not evolutionary changes, and aren't even natural selection. They are examples where certain factors can change which genes are expressed during a single individual's lifetime. It has nothing to do with passing down traits or favorable mutations influencing success of a species. It certainly isn't a response to the environment in an attempt to be better adapted as you suggested with the mice.

If a phenotype is influenced by both environment and genotype, then it cannot be random, because the response to take care of the problem of being eaten was not random, it was a direct response. Therefore the brown field mice would have have to adapt because of prior knowledge that they would be eaten, therefore this knowledge determined to change the phenotype as a means of protection.

This was the post I responded to. You said "direct response to take care of the problem". Is stress related balding a response to take care of the problem of stress? Of course not. Do the black paws and ears on a rabbit help it survive better in cooler temperatures? Nope. Of course the environment affects everything on the planet. But it's not going to magically turn a mouse's fur black when the environment around it gets darker. Nice try, though.

If you are trying to claim that brown field mice turn black later in life in response to an environment that is better suited for dark mice, you're going to have to provide evidence to that one. The brown mice die and don't reproduce as much, this is why more black mice emerge. They don't change their fur color late in life to match the environment.

a reply to: Barcs

It would have to be proven that brown mice don't produce as much because of being eaten, it could also mean that they have some type of genetic mutation that causes less to produce.

If you think that the reason black mice are prolific because of predators, then that needs to be an observed evidence and not supposition. You can't ask for evidence from us and then not proffer evidence for your claim, which I haven't seen provided yet by you, only your own suppositions.

So we agree that mutations can't be random if environmental factors also directly affect the genome. And I am not talking about the field mice. It can be assumed that is the reason for brown and black field mice but it doesn't answer for why there are albino mice.

We know that field mice are extremely prolific, so it would seem a better explanation to say they are diverse, without supposing it is because of predators. And if it is because of predators, then that has to be observed as the reason why. But no one can say that random mutations come BEFORE a threat is in place.

And you see what is funny here, you are responding to my comments without scientific rebuttal with links, only your suppositions of what it means. If you even look at the links you will see they are credible sources and not from any ID or Creationist sites. If these credible scientists are questioning randomness, then it is worthy to take a look, because that's what science is about, isn't it?

You know, I hear people all the time telling me to read a science book or an article or a peer reviewed document, and yet that is exactly what I have been doing.

But I could quote to you what Richard Dawkins said in his Third Edition, The Selfish Gene, which I have been reading,

IN the dozen years since The Selfish Gene was published its central message has become textbook orthodoxy. This is paradoxical, but not in the obvious way. It is not one of those books that was reviled as revolutionary when published, then steadily won converts until it ended up so orthodox that we now wonder what the fuss was about.

Do you now understand my criticisms and comments that people take Richard Dawkins as such an authority figure that his book has become orthodoxy? That means a religious conviction. And who does Richard Dawkins credit his understanding to? Charles Darwin.

If Darwinianism is no longer the driving philosophy in science, then someone needs to get the memo out to his converts. All of his "textbook orthodoxy" is based in his own suppositions. This was something addressed early on in this thread. Yet, I was told that it was not happening, that it is my imagination and that anything Richard Dawkins says shouldn't be mentioned. Yet, he admits the orthodoxy to his own work that others have received it as.

So, instead of "against the man", I was told that I could attack his argument, which is what I will do. But understand, as his book has become orthodoxy, I would then have to argue against suppositions that his converts trust and accept.

or·tho·dox
ˈôrTHəˌdäks/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.
"the orthodox economics of today"
synonyms: conservative, traditional, observant, devout, strict
"an orthodox Hindu"
(of a person) not independent-minded; conventional and unoriginal.
"a relatively orthodox artist"
synonyms: conventional, mainstream, conformist, established, well established, traditional, traditionalist, prevalent, popular, conservative, unoriginal
"orthodox views"
2.
(of a thing) of the ordinary or usual type; normal.
"they avoided orthodox jazz venues"

If any scientific experiment goes against the orthodoxy of The Selfish Gene then it must be heard, even if it destroys the accepted faith of those who believe and trust Richard Dawkins. That's what science is all about, disturbing orthodoxy. It isn't any longer about proving anything, just establishing someone's statements based on suppositions.

Whatever you say, warminindy will just twist your words. Look at everyone of her replies. None of them have anything to do with what the poster wrote. This is worse than mere trolling. This is compulsive misrepresentation of the argument. Whatever you try to explain will be twisted and thrown back at you until you throw your hands up in disgust. . This is willful ignorance at it's worse.

This thread is 23 pages deep and she hasn't made a sensible post yet. She not only doesn't understand what you are saying, but she doesn't understand what she is saying either. This is a nightmare for the world as a whole.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Whatever you say, warminindy will just twist your words. Look at everyone of her replies. None of them have anything to do with what the poster wrote. This is worse than mere trolling. This is compulsive misrepresentation of the argument. Whatever you try to explain will be twisted and thrown back at you until you throw your hands up in disgust. . This is willful ignorance at it's worse.

This thread is 23 pages deep and she hasn't made a sensible post yet. She not only doesn't understand what you are saying, but she doesn't understand what she is saying either. This is a nightmare for the world as a whole.

a reply to: Barcs

Well, that's your opinion.

Please, show me from any of the links I have provided where the author or I are wrong. I have continually posted links from credible (ones that your side say are credible) sources. If I can't use a credible source, then why ask for evidence?

Aren't the evidential sources good enough any more? Should I give you sources from ID so you can counterattack them? Is this now unfair and unbalanced, because I provided from the very sources you guys always ask for?

You can't dictate what a credible source is, you can't set the parameters that you think you may change the boundaries of, since this is a forum called Origins vs. Creationism, then I should have been allowed to present evidence from my own side, but I didn't, I provided yours. So all of my rebuttal has come from your side. I didn't change the parameters, you attempted to move the goal post.

If the first goal post was set at "please provide sources and evidence" and that is what I have done, then it is only fair that you do the same thing instead of resorting to accusations of me making you disgusted because I rebutted your arguments, but not your evidence, of which you have not provided, except Hydeman and Peter Vlar.

I'm keeping the goal post at "please provide evidence for your claim". So I ask, please rebut any of the scientific evidence in the articles themselves.

And going through the questions I posted in the first place, where is the scientific evidence provided for rebuttal? Attempting to marginalize me doesn't change the fact that you need scientific evidence, not conjecture on your part, to answer the questions.

I used correct terminology and the prevailing theory in my questions. The first five responses offered no links for evidence, only subjective theories and suppositions. My first response I did provide evidence. So, by the time of the eighth comment, I was accused of being racist.

Do you see the patterned responses? In all of nine posts, the only scientific evidence proffered was by me. It seems I have been going by the goal post parameters. So in your frustration, where is your evidence?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Whatever you say, warminindy will just twist your words. Look at everyone of her replies. None of them have anything to do with what the poster wrote. This is worse than mere trolling. This is compulsive misrepresentation of the argument. Whatever you try to explain will be twisted and thrown back at you until you throw your hands up in disgust. . This is willful ignorance at it's worse.

This thread is 23 pages deep and she hasn't made a sensible post yet. She not only doesn't understand what you are saying, but she doesn't understand what she is saying either. This is a nightmare for the world as a whole.

a reply to: Barcs

Well, that's your opinion.

Please, show me from any of the links I have provided where the author or I are wrong. I have continually posted links from credible (ones that your side say are credible) sources. If I can't use a credible source, then why ask for evidence?

Aren't the evidential sources good enough any more? Should I give you sources from ID so you can counterattack them? Is this now unfair and unbalanced, because I provided from the very sources you guys always ask for?

You can't dictate what a credible source is, you can't set the parameters that you think you may change the boundaries of, since this is a forum called Origins vs. Creationism, then I should have been allowed to present evidence from my own side, but I didn't, I provided yours. So all of my rebuttal has come from your side. I didn't change the parameters, you attempted to move the goal post.

If the first goal post was set at "please provide sources and evidence" and that is what I have done, then it is only fair that you do the same thing instead of resorting to accusations of me making you disgusted because I rebutted your arguments, but not your evidence, of which you have not provided, except Hydeman and Peter Vlar.

I'm keeping the goal post at "please provide evidence for your claim". So I ask, please rebut any of the scientific evidence in the articles themselves.

And going through the questions I posted in the first place, where is the scientific evidence provided for rebuttal? Attempting to marginalize me doesn't change the fact that you need scientific evidence, not conjecture on your part, to answer the questions.

I used correct terminology and the prevailing theory in my questions. The first five responses offered no links for evidence, only subjective theories and suppositions. My first response I did provide evidence. So, by the time of the eighth comment, I was accused of being racist.

Do you see the patterned responses? In all of nine posts, the only scientific evidence proffered was by me. It seems I have been going by the goal post parameters. So in your frustration, where is your evidence?

i suppose my question at this point is, given your apparent disatisfaction with where science has taken us so far, what would you suggest as a reasonable alternative? you dont like evolution, so give us a scientifically superior alternative.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Woodcarver

i suppose my question at this point is, given your apparent disatisfaction with where science has taken us so far, what would you suggest as a reasonable alternative? you dont like evolution, so give us a scientifically superior alternative.

My dissatisfaction does not come from science itself, but the continual knee jerk reaction by people who demand evidence from us and then when we provide evidence that explains our side and the continual rejection of any merits of ID scientists based on fanboys of Dawkins, Hitchens and others like that, to marginalize and stifle any voice that doesn't agree to a worldview of the above mentioned.

I've already stated my position that it is not science that I am against, we would not know about gravity without Newton or time relativity without Einstein. I don't see this world and universe as mere nature.

Science has given us good things such as pasteurized milk and the polio vaccine. But it has also given us negative things, such as nuclear weapons. Science and technology has been at the forefront of every civilizations' achievements, but to dismiss every religious view because it doesn't seem to be scientific discounts the many religious people who are scientists. And their voices should be heard as well.

I would agree that if the definition of evolution is merely small mutations that lead to phenotypical variety, then that is reasonable. What I can't agree is that those tiny mutations led to overall changes to make one species into another. There is no direct evidence that it does, it is merely an assumption that it does.

This reminds me of the episode of Friends...



We can't go back to asking about abiogenesis, because modern scientists are rejecting that claim and there are many abandoning the question of origins, because they can't give an answer outside of abiogenesis. I try to cite from the most recent findings.

So I would pose this as a conundrum which Dawkins even points out The Selfish Gene, Third Edition

Even within biology the neglect and misuse of Darwinian theory has been astonishing.

We then must question what those neglects and misuses are and how it affects education and popular perception, because of this..

I recently learned a disagreeable fact: there are influential scientists in the habit of putting their names to publications in whose composition they have played no part. Apparently some senior scientists claim joint authorship of a paper when all that they have contributed is bench space, grant money and an editorial readthrough of the manuscript. For all I know, entire scientific reputations may have been built on the work of students and colleagues! I don't know what can be done to combat this dishonesty.

If biologists have been misusing Darwinism to advance an ideology, and doing so to ensure more money toward their reputations, then the community is now in a crises, which Dawkins is now addressing. So he must reiterate that because his book became orthodoxy, it still is his own assumptions and theories.

These are issues that have been presented from our side for a long time, but even the very illustrious Dawkins is now conceding the problem.

See, that's what has happened, not only in this forum but in all forums. What should happen is that science be moved back to its position of seeking to know about life and the universe, instead of setting itself up as the authority of pop culture fanaticism.

See, even though I disagree with Dawkins, I respect him for reiterating throughout that it is his own assumptions and lamenting the fact that his book became orthodoxy textbook.

a reply to: WarminIndy

My dissatisfaction does not come from science itself, but the continual knee jerk reaction by people who demand evidence from us and then when we provide evidence that explains our side and the continual rejection of any merits of ID scientists based on fanboys of Dawkins, Hitchens and others like that, to marginalize and stifle any voice that doesn't agree to a worldview of the above mentioned.

so you want to see ID and evolution treated as equals?

Science has given us good things such as pasteurized milk and the polio vaccine. But it has also given us negative things, such as nuclear weapons. Science and technology has been at the forefront of every civilizations' achievements, but to dismiss every religious view because it doesn't seem to be scientific discounts the many religious people who are scientists. And their voices should be heard as well.

if they want to speak, then they should welcome the criticism that will inevitably follow. i feel it is the latter part that tends to spark outrage in ID proponents.

I would agree that if the definition of evolution is merely small mutations that lead to phenotypical variety, then that is reasonable. What I can't agree is that those tiny mutations led to overall changes to make one species into another. There is no direct evidence that it does, it is merely an assumption that it does.

i have two points to make here, and i mean no offense. i am being honest pure and simple.

one - i have a difficult time understanding why you seek your education in the matter of evolution on a conspiracy forum. it would be much more gratifying to win this debate face to face with an actual professor who is paid to know these things.

two - i find it interesting that you would pick at perceived assumptions in evolution when ID is nothing but assumptions. you dont know who created it, where they come from, what their intentions are, what their nature is, etc. i would be interested to see where it would take you if you spent as much time poking holes in your own boat. you are curiously content to remain "faithful" where you insist that we must provide concrete proof on a silver platter. i am content in letting professional science representatives uncover the truth on behalf of mankind - but where will YOUR proof come from?

If biologists have been misusing Darwinism to advance an ideology, and doing so to ensure more money toward their reputations, then the community is now in a crises, which Dawkins is now addressing. So he must reiterate that because his book became orthodoxy, it still is his own assumptions and theories.

These are issues that have been presented from our side for a long time, but even the very illustrious Dawkins is now conceding the problem.

See, that's what has happened, not only in this forum but in all forums. What should happen is that science be moved back to its position of seeking to know about life and the universe, instead of setting itself up as the authority of pop culture fanaticism.

See, even though I disagree with Dawkins, I respect him for reiterating throughout that it is his own assumptions and lamenting the fact that his book became orthodoxy textbook.

is darwinism really the focal point to your whole argument? because thats what it seems like from where i am siting. darwinism this and darwinism that.

a reply to: TzarChasm

!: I am not seeking education here. This is a public forum and this particular section is titled Origins vs. Creationism, so I am permitted and allowed to post here, the same as you.

2: Your side says we may not use assumptions, but allow assumptions for your side. See how unbalanced and unfair that is?

3: You can't get Darwinism out of the debate because it is the foundation of the whole discussion anyway. Whether or not you hold to it matters little, it is still what is being taught in the classrooms.

4: Yes, ID is as viable in a forum titled Origins vs. Creationism. And yes, in this particular forum section, ID has equal footing. Please see title forum again if you misunderstood.

What is it about the title and the purpose of online forums that you have a little trouble misunderstanding? This is a forum created for people who believe in Creation to be able to express their views. If that is something you don't like, then please go to ATS mods and ask them to remove this forum section. Otherwise, please respect our right to ask, comment, debate, postulate or whatever we wish to say.

I am not over in the Conspiracies in Religion section debating with them. I am here, you came here with the purpose of interaction and dialogue, so let's dialogue without the rhetoric. Don't forget, this section was created for us to be allowed to share and ask questions. With that in mind, please interact and dialogue.

a reply to: WarminIndy

!: I am not seeking education here. This is a public forum and this particular section is titled Origins vs. Creationism, so I am permitted and allowed to post here, the same as you.

that wasnt my point, and im not trying to shoo you out the door. you dont strike me as someone who is intentionally malicious but more to the point, we are both here by choice. so i cant blame you for much of anything at this point except being quite the skeptic which is a compliment around here haha.

2: Your side says we may not use assumptions, but allow assumptions for your side. See how unbalanced and unfair that is?

i knew that was coming. i would like to point out that we use EDUCATED assumptions, ballpark estimates that are always ready to be adjusted with the ebb and flow of data. ID assumptions are based on...well, it varies but education is not the motivating factor. otherwise faith would be more of a sideline player than it is now.

3: You can't get Darwinism out of the debate because it is the foundation of the whole discussion anyway. Whether or not you hold to it matters little, it is still what is being taught in the classrooms.

in the same sense that a model t is the foundation of modern passenger vehicles like trucks and minivans. darwinism is not being taight as gospel. drawinism is being taught as an introduction to modern evolutionary synthesis. here is where it began, here is how we used to understand it, here is where we are now and where we hope to go. its called HISTORY. very important to know where modern ideas come from because then we know how they were developed and cultured. do you expect us never ever to discuss darwinism again because it wasnt a perfect theory? no it can still be learned from even if its flawed. again, it is not gospel.

4: Yes, ID is as viable in a forum titled Origins vs. Creationism. And yes, in this particular forum section, ID has equal footing. Please see title forum again if you misunderstood.

heh. that doesnt make them equal. but i see what you are trying to say.

a reply to: TzarChasm


I like this reply function so you can see the above post without having to quote the entire thing.

I think I am direct to the point a lot...lol. Yes, I am skeptical about many things also, and some of those things do fall in the realm of belief. For instance, I am skeptical that there is an Illuminati cabal. I think that if an organization were that powerful and secretive, then how are people able to expose it?

I would like to point out also that ID proponents are also using educated guesses, but they arrive at their conclusions the same as an person does who weighs evidence. If I had to look at a bone that was just dug up out of the ground, perhaps a person, I am not going to speculate about the life of that person, because we simply don't know what they did in their daily life nor do we know what they believed. But that has happened a lot in anthropology. I mean the current way of viewing ancient people is that they were all really more religious and faithful than we are today. We don't know that so it becomes the default answer in archaeology and anthropology.

So there are things about that I am skeptical about.

I think every view point is equal, because every view point is arrived by the same process, looking at evidence and then interpreting it. I saw a very good example of that last evening, a scientist presented two arcs, one above and one below and then asked the viewer what was missing. He showed four drawings that would connect the lines in different ways and the viewer then could choose what was missing. However, none of the answers were correct because the picture was drawn that way, nothing was taken out, so nothing was missing. He used this as an example of brainwashing, because he made the viewer simply think there was something missing, when in reality it was just drawn that way. He merely suggested something.

That's the same thing happening in science as well, a professor might present a fossil and then ask the student what is missing. The student is offered several choices and chooses, based on a preconceived idea of what it should properly look like. But it was wrong, if nothing were missing at all. You can't add to something that was already formulated and presented as complete, because then it is no longer what the original was.

So now there is epigenetics, and scientists discovering something more about the genome than previously understood. Are they adding more to the image or seeing the image as it is?

The Model T might be a good example, but the Model T also had an Intelligent Designer, it didn't just evolve itself into a Maserati. But the same concept of internal combustion drives both. The horse is still viable enough as a means of transportation, the Amish still use it today. If the ultimate goal is to get from point A to point B, even walking still gets you there, the automobile is merely a convenience.

How does this all relate to Creation, ID and evolution? It's how you want to explain the ride along the way.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I would like to point out also that ID proponents are also using educated guesses, but they arrive at their conclusions the same as an person does who weighs evidence. If I had to look at a bone that was just dug up out of the ground, perhaps a person, I am not going to speculate about the life of that person, because we simply don't know what they did in their daily life nor do we know what they believed. But that has happened a lot in anthropology. I mean the current way of viewing ancient people is that they were all really more religious and faithful than we are today. We don't know that so it becomes the default answer in archaeology and anthropology.

with all due respect, educated guesses do not sound like "Have faith in the lord for he is your god". that is the sound of indoctrination and offers only programming, not education. that comment doesnt apply to all ID proponents, only the ones who believe because the bible tells them to and not because thoroughly examined and cross-examined evidence strongly suggests it is so.

I think every view point is equal, because every view point is arrived by the same process, looking at evidence and then interpreting it. I saw a very good example of that last evening, a scientist presented two arcs, one above and one below and then asked the viewer what was missing. He showed four drawings that would connect the lines in different ways and the viewer then could choose what was missing. However, none of the answers were correct because the picture was drawn that way, nothing was taken out, so nothing was missing. He used this as an example of brainwashing, because he made the viewer simply think there was something missing, when in reality it was just drawn that way. He merely suggested something.

not all interpretation is created equal.

The Model T might be a good example, but the Model T also had an Intelligent Designer, it didn't just evolve itself into a Maserati. But the same concept of internal combustion drives both. The horse is still viable enough as a means of transportation, the Amish still use it today. If the ultimate goal is to get from point A to point B, even walking still gets you there, the automobile is merely a convenience.

How does this all relate to Creation, ID and evolution? It's how you want to explain the ride along the way.

i will answer this in a moment, i have to post and attend to life for a few.