Denial of evolution II

[(Q)]

Ophiolite said that she would provide evidence for her contention in due time.

I doubt it. But, it's funny you should think O comes off as a woman. hehe

 

[Clucky]

I doubt it. But, it's funny you should think O comes off as a woman. hehe

*runs off to edit*

 

[Ophiolite]

You're free to provide examples of such nonsense, but I doubt you will.

Thank you. I was afraid to proceed any further with the project without your stamp of approval.

..... but I doubt you will.

I always value your discouragement, you know that.

Most likely, it will be your own personal unfounded objections.

Well, they shall certainly be my own objections. I rarely offer the objections of others. You should take a stab at originality one day. It might suit you. Then again.......

Ah, now there's a sensible approach to bringing up children, don't let them read about biological evolution. Smart.

Is everyone around here having comprehension problems? No, it's only the slow ones. In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennet has written an much more scholarly and informative book on evolution than any of Dawkins works. Why would directing my grandchildren towards his work be considered foolish? Since neither of my two children have any doubts about the reality of evolution do you think I just got lucky? It couldn't have been a proper upbringing could it?

I think he was referring to his critique of religion, rather than the revolutionary work he has done in the field.

I'm afraid not. I'm talking about The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker. I won't even go near his hysterical attacks on religion.
I am not talking about his ideas, I am talking about the means of presenting them.
But really this is off topic. When I get a chance I'll put a critique together illustrating my viewpoint. It should be interesting for me. I formed these impressions some time ago, so I'd like to see if I still think the same way.

He (Dennett), IMHO, is just as egotistical and domagntic as Dawkins. -

That wasn't my impression. I've only read the one work by him and I thought it logically presented. Now that doesn't mean I agree with him on all points. He had a major beef with Gould and I would be much more in the Gould camp, but his attack was well structured and solidly based.

 

[Norsefire]

Actually I agree that Dawkins seems dogmatic. Although, then again, I have not really looked deeply into his works, so I wouldn't really be able to say. But he seems almost arrogant and stubborn.

Not that I don't agree with evolution; just, Dawkins seems arrogant and stubborn.

 

[Clucky]

Had you read "The God Delusion," you would not claim his attacks were hysterical. He presents an argument, counters it, and in a logical, concise way at that. They are rational, certainly not hysterical. The only time I have heard people speak that way is when they have not read the literature. I think it is his terribly english, stiff upper-lipped way of speaking which makes people perceive him as arrogant.

I look forward though, to your description and critique of his presentation.

 

[Ophiolite]

Had you read "The God Delusion," you would not claim his attacks were hysterical.

He recently presented his ideas on religion on a BBC programme. I stumbled across it while channel hopping unaware of the subject or the presenter. (I had little or no idea what Dawkins looked like.)

Within five minutes I was infuriated by the tenor of the presenters entire approach. Within ten minutes I was thinking, this chap is as bad on screen as Dawkins is in writing. Two minutes later, after checking the listings I discovered it was Dawkins.

The guy just rubs me the wrong way.

Let's get back on topic.

 

[iceaura]

I have read Dennet's Consciousness Explained and a few others of his - He, IMHO, is just as egotistical and domagntic as Dawkins. -

Aside from stating his ideas in the form of clear declarative sentences, which I regard as a courtesy, I can't really think of anything from Dennett that even appears as dogmatic.

In this entire area the criticism of attitude, ego, and so forth, seems to align pretty well with objections that can't find a better foundation. One thing about Dawkins, even (let alone Dennett, etc): the major feature of his arguments is not the egotism of his opponents - and when he objects to dogma, you can tell what dogmatic belief he is objecting to.

 

[(Q)]

The guy just rubs me the wrong way.

A refreshing and informative critique. Nice work. :thumbsup:

 

[James R]

Evolution has not been accepted by knowledgable Christians.

I think you mean "ignorant Christians".

1. While Micro evolution (adaptation and Natural Seclection) has been observed it has not been linked with wide scale organized restructuring of life. (Macro Evolution). Having observational proof of one does not elevate the other.

You'd have to explain why a magical line would prevent something like speciation, given that you appear to accept "microevolution". At what point, exactly, does micro become macro, and what prevents life from crossing that line?

2. Evolution has experimental detractors.

So does the round Earth theory.

We know purposeful experiments have shown a distinct lack of positive variety in mutation. (1% of Plant mutations are helpful. Less than 1% of Animal mutations are helpful to the organism)

So, if you have 100 plants that mutate, then 1 of them will have a positive mutation that it might then pass on to the next generation.

How many plants are in the world? Enough to make quite a few positive mutations, I'd say.

3. DNA replicates at 99% accuracy. It easily allows for existing traits to become dominant when reinforced by enviromental need as well as to allow less desirable traits to atrophy

And that 1% (if accurate) easily allows for variety to develop, on which natural selection is bound to act.

The problem is Evolution was proposed as very small changes that progress to large changes over a very very long period of time yet the transitions never panned out as the Fossil Record can only take snapshots of history.

This is incoherent. One point simply doesn't follow from the other. What are you trying to say here?

Science had to retool their thinking and the theory to make it work. The Chicago confrence of the 1980's marked that thin acknolwedgement by the assembled scientist and embraced the once shunned idea of large jumps under a new proponent who passed it off as his own idea. Since then evolutionary scientist have disregard and redefined what is meant by a transitional fossil. It is no longer a series of fossilschains but merely a single link of that chain from which some familar traits are apparent.

Where do you get this stuff? Answers in Genesis?

Since then Science has made discoveries in Chromosomes confirming intresting fusions that were predicted and found in certain DNA, ( I believe ape) regarded as an evolutionary process...

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. This is so vague as to be practically meaningless.

So the evidence does continue mount but that direct link has yet to found. Yet it is no wonder why Scientist are so confident do the amount of information we currently have on DNA, yet questions remain and some of them insurmountable that merely have theoretical place holders supporting almost everything.

Again, too vague to amount to a statement about anything. Are you actually trying to communicate something, or just baffle people with waffle?

Objectivity the jury is still out on how far evolution goes

How far it goes in what?

Yet we can assuredly say Dinosaurs did not walk with man and the Universe was not created in six days.

Well, that's a relief. One sentence of sanity.

 

[Baron Max]

I think you mean "ignorant Christians".

And that's supposed to be an acceptable comment from an intelligent, science-oriented, rational person in an intelligent discussion on evolution?

You surprise me, James, with your inconsistent postings on this forum site as compared to your ideals of both living and of site moderation.

Baron Max

 

[Ophiolite]

Come on James. I thought he was much more tractable than normal. I'm even thinking of taking him of ignore.

 

[James R]

And that's supposed to be an acceptable comment from an intelligent, science-oriented, rational person in an intelligent discussion on evolution?

Max - I might start taking your outrage seriously when you start applying your high moral standards to your own posts. Hint: you might want to start with some honesty.

Have a nice day.

 

[Baron Max]

Max - I might start taking your outrage seriously when you start applying your high moral standards to your own posts. ....

Ahh, so MY low moral standards and dishonesty makes it okay and permissible for you to lower your own moral standards and be equally dishonest?
Two wrongs make a right?
Immoral people deserve to be treated with ridicule and immoral behavior?
Revenge is mine, sayeth James R.?
What's next, James, the threat of banishment?

Glad to see that you're living "up" to my views on humans and human behavior, James. And it's funny, ain't it, how most on this site continue to prove my point ....that humans suck. Practically every day, some self-righteous, highly moral member will resort to what I consider as normal human behavior ....being pricks!

Oh, as to evolution, did y'all see the "Non Sequitur" comic strip by Wiley Miller in today's paper? It provided a perfectly plausible explanation for the beginnings as well as evolution on Earth. I don't know ...maybe on gocomics.com? I'm not very computer-literate, so....

Baron Max

 

[codanblad]

This predilection to persecute and dominate one another has occured throughout history. It is a lesson we never learn. As a species we take pleasure from authority and using it abusively. It is perhaps the strongest reason to doubt scientist that have no sense of community or teach compassion to those they would have spread that knowledge. It is the dispising of religion which is inseperable from every culture on the Earth and the near pathological (yes, being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal) persecution and browbeating it borders on psychosis.

typical religious response "everyone's out to get us! oh life is so hard cos we're so persecuted and thats how you know we're 100% genuine! cos we're so woeful the only reason to join is is that we possess divine truth!!"

 

[superstring01]

Because evolution requires croco-ducks in the fossil record.

But there ARE croco-ducks!

~String

 

[Baron Max]

But there ARE croco-ducks!

And God put them there just to cause more confusion and argument and conflicts between humans!!

Baron Max

 

[superstring01]

And God put them there just to cause more confusion and argument and conflicts between humans!!

Baron Max

There's no such thing as God, Baron. And if there were, then she surely wouldn't do that.

~String

 

[Norsefire]

Actually saying we don't know if there is a god is far wiser.

 

[Saquist]

Come on James. I thought he was much more tractable than normal. I'm even thinking of taking him of ignore.

Firstly,
Thank you. I've been altering my approach. Secondly, don't bother.
I've fought all the No-Win-Scenarios and even won a few.

I think you mean "ignorant Christians".

Negative James I meant what I said.
The Post wasn't really for you. I knew there was a high probability that you and Ophiolite would respond. However, you've rarely addressed me directly before, I wonder why now.

In any case this is one of those situations where the Unstopable Force meets the Unmovable Oject. I've learned alot from these forums. I've learned where I was wrong and where I was right. I'ved tested myself in the fire of acrimonious bigorty on your forums and I am still here, a little leaner, alittle meaner and thankfully alittle bit more tolerant. Yet, perhaps more importantly just little bit more wiser than when I arrived.

I will always consider the facts, James and I do read some of your more factual and even tempered post but if I engage you here-now and in the mind set that you're in, then I can't say that I learned anything. So the only propper thing to say is...Thank you for your response and ...goodbye.

 

[TheVisitor]

Link, or be called out as a bullshitter.

I don't see the problem.
They are still among us today.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-700-1162969103_thumb.jpg