Is it just me, or has dmz not yet put forth anything near resembling a compelling case against evolution? Mostly just a bunch of one-liners, catch-phrases, and retorts where the criticism isn't clear at all.
Again, excellent rehtoric---except maybe the "evolution begs a designer" bit.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
"oh the [insert theory-of-the-week animal here] first learned to glide then they learned to fly as the feathers and wings developed."
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
Again, excellent rehtoric---except maybe the "evolution begs a designer" bit.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh dmz, you so funny. Give an example, please, other than fundie sound bites. Please. It ought to be entertaining.
Quote:
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
Wow, you are clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice, aren't you?
Quote:
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
Uh-oh... how does wood burn? How do sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid make salt water? How sugars and starches combine to make cake when you bake it? Oh my god, *these aren't treated in the Bible*! *They must not be happening!* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Silly fundie.
Quote:
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
And this is different from creationism *HOW*?
If you're going to claim that evolution is to be invalidated on this basis, then you have to invalidate creationism at the same time.
"It just happened, don't ask how." <-- precisely the message in creationism. Of course, since "don't ask" is the fundamental concept of fundamentalism anyway, that's not surprising.
Quote:
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
Bullpucky. It's obvious you haven't past a high-school level of understanding of science, if that, by your own choice.
Try reading something not Church Approved(tm) sometime. You might be surprised.
Quote:
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
Again, excellent rehtoric---except maybe the "evolution begs a designer" bit.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
"oh the [insert theory-of-the-week animal here] first learned to glide then they learned to fly as the feathers and wings developed."
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
It's Halo time.
Nordstrodamus, I'm gonna take you stance from now on. Arguing with people who wont even answer simple questions like "Is the earth the center of the universe" or "What proof would you need in order to believe in evolution" is simply silly on my behalf. Arguing with someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works is folly. Yelling at the wind to try and make it stop is a waste of my time. Convincing someone that evolution is a fact of life (I showed at least two sources of how creatures have evolved--wolves, and peppered moths) when they don't want to trust fact while blindly accepting an allagorical story as the "God's honest truth" (pun intended) is is misuse of my time. So, with that...
DMZ you are 100% correct, and I concede. Evolution does not occure. The life forms here today are the EXACT same lifeforms as those present when the world was created 6000 years ago. At no point in time has a single organism underwent a change which improved the likelyhood of survival. At no point in time has the structure of life changed from one generation of creature to another. At no point in time has there been explosive periods of evolution coenciding with the reversing of the magnetic poles of the earth. The earth is the center of it all. Galaleo was wrong, and the 14th century church doctrine was correct. The earth is a great disk contrary to what the Greeks discovered in the early 500's BCE. There have never been experiments where a pre-life aqtmosphere was created in a large glass sphere resulting in the formation of simple amino acids (the building blocks of life) after an electric shock (lightening). There has never been a virus that has mutated in response to a vaccine. There has never been a bacteria that has mutated to become immune to a particular medacine. Baleen whales have always had Baleen. They didn't loose their teeth and develope baleen in a slow process as a result of competition with other types of whales. There are no intermediat whale fossiles at the bottom of the ocean because we have been down there, combed every square inch and found nothing. There is no genetic link beenween seal lions and caninis. There is no genetic link between any two creatures because we were all designed and as such change is impossible. What surrounds me now has always been here. What surrounds me now will never change.
All of the science I have done throughout my life is wrong. I have not used a scanning electron microscope to see the locations of individuals atoms in a crystal lattice of a material. I have not split U235 into daughter atoms and an average 2.5 neutrons. God made the energy when I raised the control rods. The scanning electron microscope was programmed to make a pattern of bright dots when I placed a sample of BCC iron iin the chamber.
DMZ you are 100% right. We have not seen species of animals with different traits which allow them to survive under differnent circumstances. There isn't a species of house fly that doesn't have wings in Hawaii due to lack of preditory insects.
I'll have to run to Mass next Sunday and tell my priest his view on evolution is wrong... I hate to do it though because I figured a former biologist turn priest would know better but I guess not. No strike that I can't wait. I'll tell him Wednesday at Mass...
This battle must be fought quickly, as Evil Wall will constantly advance on your party and, when it gets close enough, use an instant kill attack. Have Rosa cast Berserk on Cecil, Kain, and Edge, while having her heal damage caused by the Evil Wall. If the Evil Wall starts using its instant kill attack, have Rosa cast Life on the dead person to revive them, and continue attacking.
Rydia should concentrate on casting Virus, or if she does not know that, summoning Leviathan.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory
What could "prove" it then? Are you aware that science should only ever have theories, rather than facts, and update them based on the evidence available? (aside: Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but far more practical for everyday engineering purposes).
Quote:
How did life form?
This topic is not evolution (as has been said many times). Evolution needs life, but does not seek to explain its origin.
Baleen: proto-whale may had a mixed diet, with a less efficient filter to catch plankton but supplemented with other things. Also, why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
(I Am Not a Cetacean Scientist).
Quote:
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
Think modularity. It doesn't matter if blood is still flowing to the organs, as long as it still roughly the same (ie compatible). The same goes for nerves.
Quote:
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?
Mutation/recominbination. The probablility of mutations may seem low for an individual, but remember that we're dealing with large populations and timescales, and that not all mutations necessarily affect the organism (gene expression is surprinsingly robust).
Quote:
faust, shetline..et al, you guys do realize that's the wall you're talking to.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory
Since you act like you're so knowledgable about the ways of science, here's an excellent opportunity for you to strut your stuff and explain just what it means for something to be "proven" or not.
Quote:
a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
Have you got another bogus interpretation of thermodynamics to offer us here, or something better? Just which "characterisitcs of the known universe" are all of these anyway?
Quote:
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking;
Tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE (since you're the expert on that, apparently) requires said "working models".
Quote:
blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Like a God Who snaps His Fingers and makes anything He wants to exist poof into existence?
Adaptation through mutation and natural selection is far more than a "blue-sky paradigm" or "abstract generalities". It has been observed and tested. Yes, on much smaller scales that are needed to bring a full living world into existence, but there's more than enough data from which to draw useful conclusions and with which to test and extend our models.
Do you wish to essentially rule out scientific access to anything that can't be exactly recreated in a laboratory?
Is forensic evidence that convicts a murder just so much "blue sky" until the forensic scientists recreate the same murder in a laboratory?
I propose that you have, in fact, already ruled out anything that a scientist could possibly come up with as evidence. I'll bet that if scientists learned how to accelerate time, and did so in a vast preserve filled with nothing but raw chemical components, and came out with new life and new species, you'd simply dismiss the awesome wonder of such an experiment by saying something like "The just used their own intelligence to make it comes out that way, and they just copied God's work. They still haven't proved anything to me."
Even if by some miracle (pardon the expression) that the above was finally enough to convince you, I feel fairly certain that you'll happily rule out anything less that this as sufficient proof.
If you think that digging in your heels and making up your mind that you'll accept nothing less than impossible-to-conduct experiments as proof makes you some sort of Champion of True Science, you don't understand at all what science is about at all.
Quote:
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
You've been given the opportunity to explain what the problem is here, and haven't taken it yet. I don't know enough about whales and the kinds of food they eat to know what alterative food sources might have existed in the past, what adaptations whales might have passed through as available food sources changed, etc.
Presumably you must know something about this that makes the whale question terribly troubling and difficult to explain. Either that, or you're convinced that the question is a stumper without having even thought about much yourself.
Quote:
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"
Developing a model of how random changes guided by natural selection can lead to adaptive complexity is more that "it just did".
Examining geological data and doing experiments to determine if the available conditions and chemical constituents needed for life were available are more than "it just did".
Making successful predictions based on the theory of evolution about what future archeological and genetic studies might prove is more that "it just did".
And by the way, the question of how the very first life formed isn't a question of evolution anyway, it's a question of "biogenesis". Evolution starts with the first cell or cells already in existence. You can insert gods, aliens, or evolution-inspired models of chemical biogenesis in here if you like, but the validity of evolution is a separate and independent issue from the matter of where the first life came from.
Quote:
and please don't ask to see behind the curtain.
Your solution seems to be to jump straight to a God "behind the curtain" without bothering with any intervening steps, models, or examination of data. This is your vision of better science?
Your solution is to take a fixed, invariant story and struggle to make the data fit the story, because you already "know" the story you have is true. This is your vision of better science?
Quote:
and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
This again. As I said above, tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE requires said "working models".
Quote:
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
You already know the answer, even if you refuse to accept it as sufficient: random mutation. You simply fail to understand how "mere" randomness is a powerful thing when operating under selective pressures and given billions of years and enormous numbers (quadrillions? quintillions? sextillions? however many living beings have ever existed) of opportunities for trial and error.
I imagine that you grin a wide grin when someone trots out that old saw comparing evolution to "a tornado hitting a junkyard creating a 747". If you smugly think that silly analogy has evolution nailed, it's just another sign you don't know what you're talking about or arguing against.
Quote:
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
I don't see the slightest evidence of evolution fading. Among whom? Where? Have any statistics?
And by the way, how are things going at that bustling center of scientific inquiry known as the Creation Studies Institute? Are those studies that are going to rock the world just around the corner from being published now? Or are all those other bad, evil, Satanic scientists still beating down the fine God-fearing CSI folk, and persecuting them so much that they just can't get the Good Word out to a larger audience yet?
As for "complete improbability" -- just another sign that you're clueless about the very thing you're railing against. You're fighting a creationist-created parody of evolution, not evolution itself.
faust, shetline..et al, you guys do realize that's the wall you're talking to.
It's simply interesting to see how much dmz (or any other creationist who might happen to come along) will do to avoid answering the questions that he isn't prepared to answer.
I've never once, not once, found a creationist who railed against how evolution is "completely incompatible with modern science", or some such drivel, to come forward and show even a hint that they know what is compatible and how the scientific method actually works.
It would be amusing someday to see a creationist try, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dmz hasn't even managed so far to clarify his all-important "what were the whales eating" question that he seems to think is so pivotal. I'm ready to take a shot at it if he ever can explain what the mystifying puzzle is supposed to be.
It's simply interesting to see how much dmz (or any other creationist who might happen to come along) will do to avoid answering the questions that he isn't prepared to answer.
I've never once, not once, found a creationist who railed against how evolution is "completely incompatible with modern science", or some such drivel, to come forward and show even a hint that they know what is compatible and how the scientific method actually works.
It would be amusing someday to see a creationist try, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dmz hasn't even managed so far to clarify his all-important "what were the whales eating" question that he seems to think is so pivotal. I'm ready to take a shot at it if he ever can explain what the mystifying puzzle is supposed to be.
<sarcasm>You're wrong.... Just accept it. All we know was created as is. No change. No alteration. No mutation. Baleen whales weren't eating anything because god made these whales (with vestages of limbs and all) and plankton at the same time. Adam then named then and we progressed from that point. <\\sarcasm>
It's unreasonable to agrue a reasonable point when an unreasonable response is all that will suffice.
It's unreasonable to agrue a reasonable point when an unreasonable response is all that will suffice.
I actually have made progress in conversations like this about evolution, believe it or not, but much more so in live conversations as opposed to message boards.
Not great progress, mind you, but I've gotten people to back down on some of the most egregious anti-evolution claims, and pretty much reduced a few to "well, it's just a matter of faith!", with their attacks on evolution being "unscientific" pretty much abandoned. (Not that I imagine some of these people wouldn't happily trot out the same failed arguments with different person, if they think they can get away with using them unchallenged on a different occasion.)
The great advantage of live conversation is being able to interrupt your opponent and keep forcing him back to questions that he or she is trying to avoid.
Message boards are much trickier. People can easily side step any challenge they can't handle simply by ignoring those challenges, throw out a lot of scatter shot while doing their avoidance dance, and heap up 50 questions to you for each of your unanswered questions, and then pretend that you're the one not being cooperative or who's unable to respond to their (in their own minds) oh-so-clever attacks.
If you're really keen, look at Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma (1998, Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Mass) and The Nature of Diversity: An Evolutionary Voyage of Discovery by Daniel Brooks and Deborah McLennan (2002, University of Chicago Press).
I'd also like to see some answers to the questions posted in the talk.origins list of stumper questions.
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect [NCSE n.d.]. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a website to the topic [NAS 1999]. A panel of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court [Edwards v. Aguillard 1986].
It's quite interesting that Evolutionary Biology has been declared to soon be on its death bed for so long now. Reminds me of a certain computer company I heard about once...hmm. What was it called again?
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country.
Since these are 1995 statistics, perhaps someone like dmz believes the past decade has been the start of a new Golden Age of Creationism. Who knows? Maybe the number of US scientists working in relevant fields who believe in creationism is up to a whopping 0.17% by now.
We should give dmz a chance to produce some newer stats -- if he has them, of course. He wouldn't want to leave us thinking his talk of evolution "fading" was simply wishful thinking and empty rhetoric, would he?
To dmz:
Yes, I do realize real science is more than a popularity contest. But if you're going to talk about evolution "fading", you are talking about the popularity of the idea, a claim you should either be able to back up, or not make it if you can't back it up.
And while popularity isn't a good measure of the validity of an idea, it is relevant to burden of proof. Even if you're right, and you think the world is round while nearly everyone else thinks it's flat, it's your burden of proof to prove that the world is round.
If I'm very generous, and will suppose for a moment that the wildfire of creationism taking on the world of science has produced a ten fold increase in supporters, you'd still have 97.5% of relevant, related-field scientists in the world's relative "bastion" of creationism, the US, to win over.
At least have the decency to realize a flippant dismissal of evolution as "not at all supported by science" is way, WAY out of line for the position you're arguing from. If you think you're the round-worlder surrounded by flat-worlders, do the work to prove your point.
Doing that work does not consist of throwing out scattershot supposed "gotchas". It does not consist of posing questions that you think are unanswerable, and then ignoring or denying offhand any answer you might get. The work you need to do does not consist constructing impossible standards of proof to hide behind, while pretending that applying such standards makes you a better, more demanding scientist than anyone else.
What the work of changing a widely accepted scientific view does consist of is coming up with a better alternative. It consists of constructing better models that make better predictions. It consists of explaining more things better while still adhering to the need for falsifiability, which means understanding what kind of evidence would prove you wrong, and being prepared to accept that evidence if it appears.
A few creationists at least seem to understand the nature of this challenge and take it seriously. You are not one of them.
You seem to think you can challenge a strongly held, widely accepted view like evolution with nothing more than a few imagined dilemmas, with maybe even a real honest puzzle or two buried in there, coupled with a heavy dose of derision that you haven't earned the right to dish out through any real work of your own.
Again, dmz didn't answer a single question posed to him. What a worthless little putz.
Uh oh---I've never been called a putz before.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickahick
Wow, you are clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice, aren't you?
Uh oh---I've never been called a clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice before.
Quote:
Originally posted by Faust9
Arguing with someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works is folly.
Uh oh---I've never been called someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works before.
Quote:
Originally posted by Shitline
-- just another sign that you're clueless about the very thing you're railing against.
Uh oh---I've never been called clueless about the very thing you're railing against before.
You have more questions for me---but no answers? Look, this isn't a high-school biology class--it's not a National Geographic special. Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
Comments
dmz, Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
If there is none, then you are all wasting your time arguing the point with him/her.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
"oh the [insert theory-of-the-week animal here] first learned to glide then they learned to fly as the feathers and wings developed."
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
It's Halo time.
Originally posted by dmz
Again, excellent rehtoric---except maybe the "evolution begs a designer" bit.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... oh dmz, you so funny. Give an example, please, other than fundie sound bites. Please. It ought to be entertaining.
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
Wow, you are clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice, aren't you?
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
Uh-oh... how does wood burn? How do sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid make salt water? How sugars and starches combine to make cake when you bake it? Oh my god, *these aren't treated in the Bible*! *They must not be happening!* AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Silly fundie.
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
And this is different from creationism *HOW*?
If you're going to claim that evolution is to be invalidated on this basis, then you have to invalidate creationism at the same time.
"It just happened, don't ask how." <-- precisely the message in creationism. Of course, since "don't ask" is the fundamental concept of fundamentalism anyway, that's not surprising.
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
Bullpucky. It's obvious you haven't past a high-school level of understanding of science, if that, by your own choice.
Try reading something not Church Approved(tm) sometime. You might be surprised.
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
Beginning to fade?? What *are* you smoking?
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
faust, shetline..et al, you guys do realize that's the wall you're talking to.
Walls are fine if they are silent like walls. It's when they show their ignorance by speaking that they become annoying.
It's when they band together and try and force their lunacy down everyone else's throats that they become dangerous.
Originally posted by dmz
Again, excellent rehtoric---except maybe the "evolution begs a designer" bit.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory---a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking; blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"---the elements "just formed" in the comos, those chemicals "just formed" amino acids, those somehow changed to this, that and everthing"....it just did...it just did....it just did."
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
"---they just did, the beings just developed----and please don't ask to see behind the curtain."
....you have no other answers to offer than "it just developed", "it just evolved", "it just did". You have NO ideas on what sort of sustanable sytems could have existed between the systems we know of, and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
"oh the [insert theory-of-the-week animal here] first learned to glide then they learned to fly as the feathers and wings developed."
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
It's Halo time.
Nordstrodamus, I'm gonna take you stance from now on. Arguing with people who wont even answer simple questions like "Is the earth the center of the universe" or "What proof would you need in order to believe in evolution" is simply silly on my behalf. Arguing with someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works is folly. Yelling at the wind to try and make it stop is a waste of my time. Convincing someone that evolution is a fact of life (I showed at least two sources of how creatures have evolved--wolves, and peppered moths) when they don't want to trust fact while blindly accepting an allagorical story as the "God's honest truth" (pun intended) is is misuse of my time. So, with that...
DMZ you are 100% correct, and I concede. Evolution does not occure. The life forms here today are the EXACT same lifeforms as those present when the world was created 6000 years ago. At no point in time has a single organism underwent a change which improved the likelyhood of survival. At no point in time has the structure of life changed from one generation of creature to another. At no point in time has there been explosive periods of evolution coenciding with the reversing of the magnetic poles of the earth. The earth is the center of it all. Galaleo was wrong, and the 14th century church doctrine was correct. The earth is a great disk contrary to what the Greeks discovered in the early 500's BCE. There have never been experiments where a pre-life aqtmosphere was created in a large glass sphere resulting in the formation of simple amino acids (the building blocks of life) after an electric shock (lightening). There has never been a virus that has mutated in response to a vaccine. There has never been a bacteria that has mutated to become immune to a particular medacine. Baleen whales have always had Baleen. They didn't loose their teeth and develope baleen in a slow process as a result of competition with other types of whales. There are no intermediat whale fossiles at the bottom of the ocean because we have been down there, combed every square inch and found nothing. There is no genetic link beenween seal lions and caninis. There is no genetic link between any two creatures because we were all designed and as such change is impossible. What surrounds me now has always been here. What surrounds me now will never change.
All of the science I have done throughout my life is wrong. I have not used a scanning electron microscope to see the locations of individuals atoms in a crystal lattice of a material. I have not split U235 into daughter atoms and an average 2.5 neutrons. God made the energy when I raised the control rods. The scanning electron microscope was programmed to make a pattern of bright dots when I placed a sample of BCC iron iin the chamber.
DMZ you are 100% right. We have not seen species of animals with different traits which allow them to survive under differnent circumstances. There isn't a species of house fly that doesn't have wings in Hawaii due to lack of preditory insects.
I'll have to run to Mass next Sunday and tell my priest his view on evolution is wrong... I hate to do it though because I figured a former biologist turn priest would know better but I guess not. No strike that I can't wait. I'll tell him Wednesday at Mass...
Thanks DMZ, I'm a better person now.
Boss:Evil Wall
HP:28000
MP:2300
Exp23000
GP8000
Resident Location(s): Sealed Cave
Battle Strategy
This battle must be fought quickly, as Evil Wall will constantly advance on your party and, when it gets close enough, use an instant kill attack. Have Rosa cast Berserk on Cecil, Kain, and Edge, while having her heal damage caused by the Evil Wall. If the Evil Wall starts using its instant kill attack, have Rosa cast Life on the dead person to revive them, and continue attacking.
Rydia should concentrate on casting Virus, or if she does not know that, summoning Leviathan.
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory
What could "prove" it then? Are you aware that science should only ever have theories, rather than facts, and update them based on the evidence available? (aside: Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but far more practical for everyday engineering purposes).
How did life form?
This topic is not evolution (as has been said many times). Evolution needs life, but does not seek to explain its origin.
Baleen: proto-whale may had a mixed diet, with a less efficient filter to catch plankton but supplemented with other things. Also, why do whales have vestigal hind limbs?
(I Am Not a Cetacean Scientist).
How do lifeforms "evolve" interdependent nervous, digestive, immune and circulatory systems?
Think modularity. It doesn't matter if blood is still flowing to the organs, as long as it still roughly the same (ie compatible). The same goes for nerves.
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?
Mutation/recominbination. The probablility of mutations may seem low for an individual, but remember that we're dealing with large populations and timescales, and that not all mutations necessarily affect the organism (gene expression is surprinsingly robust).
faust, shetline..et al, you guys do realize that's the wall you're talking to.
Yes. I need some practice.
Originally posted by dmz
There is nothing to "disprove" concerning evolution. It has never been proven, and still remains a theory
Since you act like you're so knowledgable about the ways of science, here's an excellent opportunity for you to strut your stuff and explain just what it means for something to be "proven" or not.
a theory that fundamentally contradicts all known characterisitcs of the known universe.
Have you got another bogus interpretation of thermodynamics to offer us here, or something better? Just which "characterisitcs of the known universe" are all of these anyway?
There are no working models to contradict---only wishfull thinking;
Tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE (since you're the expert on that, apparently) requires said "working models".
blue-sky paradigms of abstract generalities.
Like a God Who snaps His Fingers and makes anything He wants to exist poof into existence?
Adaptation through mutation and natural selection is far more than a "blue-sky paradigm" or "abstract generalities". It has been observed and tested. Yes, on much smaller scales that are needed to bring a full living world into existence, but there's more than enough data from which to draw useful conclusions and with which to test and extend our models.
Do you wish to essentially rule out scientific access to anything that can't be exactly recreated in a laboratory?
Is forensic evidence that convicts a murder just so much "blue sky" until the forensic scientists recreate the same murder in a laboratory?
I propose that you have, in fact, already ruled out anything that a scientist could possibly come up with as evidence. I'll bet that if scientists learned how to accelerate time, and did so in a vast preserve filled with nothing but raw chemical components, and came out with new life and new species, you'd simply dismiss the awesome wonder of such an experiment by saying something like "The just used their own intelligence to make it comes out that way, and they just copied God's work. They still haven't proved anything to me."
Even if by some miracle (pardon the expression) that the above was finally enough to convince you, I feel fairly certain that you'll happily rule out anything less that this as sufficient proof.
If you think that digging in your heels and making up your mind that you'll accept nothing less than impossible-to-conduct experiments as proof makes you some sort of Champion of True Science, you don't understand at all what science is about at all.
Questions of what did the whale's eat while waiting for their baleen to develope are dismissed as "stupid"---yet these simple, unanswered questions ruin an otherwise wishfull and scientifcally irresponsible theory.
You've been given the opportunity to explain what the problem is here, and haven't taken it yet. I don't know enough about whales and the kinds of food they eat to know what alterative food sources might have existed in the past, what adaptations whales might have passed through as available food sources changed, etc.
Presumably you must know something about this that makes the whale question terribly troubling and difficult to explain. Either that, or you're convinced that the question is a stumper without having even thought about much yourself.
How did life form?
---you don't have anything other than "it just did"
Developing a model of how random changes guided by natural selection can lead to adaptive complexity is more that "it just did".
Examining geological data and doing experiments to determine if the available conditions and chemical constituents needed for life were available are more than "it just did".
Making successful predictions based on the theory of evolution about what future archeological and genetic studies might prove is more that "it just did".
And by the way, the question of how the very first life formed isn't a question of evolution anyway, it's a question of "biogenesis". Evolution starts with the first cell or cells already in existence. You can insert gods, aliens, or evolution-inspired models of chemical biogenesis in here if you like, but the validity of evolution is a separate and independent issue from the matter of where the first life came from.
and please don't ask to see behind the curtain.
Your solution seems to be to jump straight to a God "behind the curtain" without bothering with any intervening steps, models, or examination of data. This is your vision of better science?
Your solution is to take a fixed, invariant story and struggle to make the data fit the story, because you already "know" the story you have is true. This is your vision of better science?
and you have NO WORKING models that tell us how these could have transformed.
This again. As I said above, tell us what a "working model" is, and please explain to what degree TRUE SCIENCE requires said "working models".
Uh.....okay, great theory, how did this happen at a DNA level?---oh and, by the way, what is the likelyhood of this happening knowing what we observe in DNA?
You already know the answer, even if you refuse to accept it as sufficient: random mutation. You simply fail to understand how "mere" randomness is a powerful thing when operating under selective pressures and given billions of years and enormous numbers (quadrillions? quintillions? sextillions? however many living beings have ever existed) of opportunities for trial and error.
I imagine that you grin a wide grin when someone trots out that old saw comparing evolution to "a tornado hitting a junkyard creating a 747". If you smugly think that silly analogy has evolution nailed, it's just another sign you don't know what you're talking about or arguing against.
This is why evolution is beginning to fade as a serious theory---you need more than complete improbability to build a worldview.
I don't see the slightest evidence of evolution fading. Among whom? Where? Have any statistics?
And by the way, how are things going at that bustling center of scientific inquiry known as the Creation Studies Institute? Are those studies that are going to rock the world just around the corner from being published now? Or are all those other bad, evil, Satanic scientists still beating down the fine God-fearing CSI folk, and persecuting them so much that they just can't get the Good Word out to a larger audience yet?
As for "complete improbability" -- just another sign that you're clueless about the very thing you're railing against. You're fighting a creationist-created parody of evolution, not evolution itself.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
faust, shetline..et al, you guys do realize that's the wall you're talking to.
It's simply interesting to see how much dmz (or any other creationist who might happen to come along) will do to avoid answering the questions that he isn't prepared to answer.
I've never once, not once, found a creationist who railed against how evolution is "completely incompatible with modern science", or some such drivel, to come forward and show even a hint that they know what is compatible and how the scientific method actually works.
It would be amusing someday to see a creationist try, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dmz hasn't even managed so far to clarify his all-important "what were the whales eating" question that he seems to think is so pivotal. I'm ready to take a shot at it if he ever can explain what the mystifying puzzle is supposed to be.
Originally posted by shetline
It's simply interesting to see how much dmz (or any other creationist who might happen to come along) will do to avoid answering the questions that he isn't prepared to answer.
I've never once, not once, found a creationist who railed against how evolution is "completely incompatible with modern science", or some such drivel, to come forward and show even a hint that they know what is compatible and how the scientific method actually works.
It would be amusing someday to see a creationist try, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dmz hasn't even managed so far to clarify his all-important "what were the whales eating" question that he seems to think is so pivotal. I'm ready to take a shot at it if he ever can explain what the mystifying puzzle is supposed to be.
<sarcasm>You're wrong.... Just accept it. All we know was created as is. No change. No alteration. No mutation. Baleen whales weren't eating anything because god made these whales (with vestages of limbs and all) and plankton at the same time. Adam then named then and we progressed from that point. <\\sarcasm>
It's unreasonable to agrue a reasonable point when an unreasonable response is all that will suffice.
Originally posted by faust9
It's unreasonable to agrue a reasonable point when an unreasonable response is all that will suffice.
I actually have made progress in conversations like this about evolution, believe it or not, but much more so in live conversations as opposed to message boards.
Not great progress, mind you, but I've gotten people to back down on some of the most egregious anti-evolution claims, and pretty much reduced a few to "well, it's just a matter of faith!", with their attacks on evolution being "unscientific" pretty much abandoned. (Not that I imagine some of these people wouldn't happily trot out the same failed arguments with different person, if they think they can get away with using them unchallenged on a different occasion.)
The great advantage of live conversation is being able to interrupt your opponent and keep forcing him back to questions that he or she is trying to avoid.
Message boards are much trickier. People can easily side step any challenge they can't handle simply by ignoring those challenges, throw out a lot of scatter shot while doing their avoidance dance, and heap up 50 questions to you for each of your unanswered questions, and then pretend that you're the one not being cooperative or who's unable to respond to their (in their own minds) oh-so-clever attacks.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Have fun, I'm sure you'll look at it objectively.
Dont forget to also look over the must-read files on talk.origins, available in .pdf format.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
If you're really keen, look at Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma (1998, Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Mass) and The Nature of Diversity: An Evolutionary Voyage of Discovery by Daniel Brooks and Deborah McLennan (2002, University of Chicago Press).
I'd also like to see some answers to the questions posted in the talk.origins list of stumper questions.
Originally posted by shetline
I don't see the slightest evidence of evolution fading. Among whom? Where? Have any statistics?
Here's a statistic, yet it's one that the Creationists probably didn't have in mind.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect [NCSE n.d.]. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a website to the topic [NAS 1999]. A panel of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court [Edwards v. Aguillard 1986].
Also: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
It's quite interesting that Evolutionary Biology has been declared to soon be on its death bed for so long now. Reminds me of a certain computer company I heard about once...hmm. What was it called again?
Originally posted by rampancy (quoting from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country.
Since these are 1995 statistics, perhaps someone like dmz believes the past decade has been the start of a new Golden Age of Creationism. Who knows? Maybe the number of US scientists working in relevant fields who believe in creationism is up to a whopping 0.17% by now.
We should give dmz a chance to produce some newer stats -- if he has them, of course. He wouldn't want to leave us thinking his talk of evolution "fading" was simply wishful thinking and empty rhetoric, would he?
To dmz:
Yes, I do realize real science is more than a popularity contest. But if you're going to talk about evolution "fading", you are talking about the popularity of the idea, a claim you should either be able to back up, or not make it if you can't back it up.
And while popularity isn't a good measure of the validity of an idea, it is relevant to burden of proof. Even if you're right, and you think the world is round while nearly everyone else thinks it's flat, it's your burden of proof to prove that the world is round.
If I'm very generous, and will suppose for a moment that the wildfire of creationism taking on the world of science has produced a ten fold increase in supporters, you'd still have 97.5% of relevant, related-field scientists in the world's relative "bastion" of creationism, the US, to win over.
At least have the decency to realize a flippant dismissal of evolution as "not at all supported by science" is way, WAY out of line for the position you're arguing from. If you think you're the round-worlder surrounded by flat-worlders, do the work to prove your point.
Doing that work does not consist of throwing out scattershot supposed "gotchas". It does not consist of posing questions that you think are unanswerable, and then ignoring or denying offhand any answer you might get. The work you need to do does not consist constructing impossible standards of proof to hide behind, while pretending that applying such standards makes you a better, more demanding scientist than anyone else.
What the work of changing a widely accepted scientific view does consist of is coming up with a better alternative. It consists of constructing better models that make better predictions. It consists of explaining more things better while still adhering to the need for falsifiability, which means understanding what kind of evidence would prove you wrong, and being prepared to accept that evidence if it appears.
A few creationists at least seem to understand the nature of this challenge and take it seriously. You are not one of them.
You seem to think you can challenge a strongly held, widely accepted view like evolution with nothing more than a few imagined dilemmas, with maybe even a real honest puzzle or two buried in there, coupled with a heavy dose of derision that you haven't earned the right to dish out through any real work of your own.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Again, dmz didn't answer a single question posed to him. What a worthless little putz.
Uh oh---I've never been called a putz before.
Originally posted by Kickahick
Wow, you are clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice, aren't you?
Uh oh---I've never been called a clueless, ignorant, and ill informed by choice before.
Originally posted by Faust9
Arguing with someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works is folly.
Uh oh---I've never been called someone who doesn't know (or doesn't want to know) how science works before.
Originally posted by Shitline
-- just another sign that you're clueless about the very thing you're railing against.
Uh oh---I've never been called clueless about the very thing you're railing against before.
You have more questions for me---but no answers? Look, this isn't a high-school biology class--it's not a National Geographic special. Attacking me doesn't provide answers to your bankrupt theory of existence.
You have no answers. Get a clue.