Denial of evolution II

[Roman]

There could be any number of motivations other than factual relevancy for your question.

Just as there could be any number of motivations that than factual relevancy for your questions. How is any of this relevant, though?

As I've said. I do not believe you are open-minded enough to actually consider the facts.

What "facts" are these?

After all you haven't far. That's not a slight just my observation based on the fact that you as others default as a matter of rule (I can only presume conditioning) to attacking religion.

I was attacking your alternative theory. Had you proposed that life was beamed down, as it currently is, from alien space ships, I would also "attack" that.

I have observed, it is the first and primary objective of individuals like yourself on this forum to attack religion where and when ever it manifest itself in any form and there has been more than enough evidence to support that theory. It is my theory that bias against religion has compromised the scientific community's objectivity.

Stop projecting your butthurt on me.

1) I try to defend logically defensible positions. I have often disagreed with the militant atheists here because they tend to get a little stupid in their zeal.

2) This is a science site. Until you can provide the relevance of fairy-tales to hard, investigative science, there will continue to be bias about unnecessary hypotheses. God and other forms of dualism aren't needed to understand a deterministic universe. Parsimony. Snip snip.

Therefore I propose you are not really intrested in my observations or the facts or the opposition's position.

I want to hear what you think makes a good alternative to the theory of evolution, if it is so flawed. So in that vein, no, I don't really care about this bone or that flagellum.

 

[Saquist]

Just as there could be any number of motivations that than factual relevancy for your questions. How is any of this relevant, though?

That's true Roman. But your point is irrelevant.

If it didn't matter, I wouldn't be asking.
I'm not the one that failed to account for my own possible bias.

I was attacking your alternative theory.

No you weren't.
I have made no ascertion.

Stop projecting your butthurt on me.

Observations are not projections.

1) I try to defend logically defensible positions. I have often disagreed with the militant atheists here because they tend to get a little stupid in their zeal.

That is laudable.

2) This is a science site. .

No kidding.
So why wasn't anyone intrested in an objective apprasial of evolution?

I want to hear what you think makes a good alternative to the theory of evolution, if it is so flawed. So in that vein, no, I don't really care about this bone or that flagellum.

If it's SO flawed? it is flawed. Roman, if you can't make a direct link from wide scale changes to small scale adaptations...If the fossil Record can't confirm or deny the transitions from one to another because of it's brief viewing then where is the basis for the theory? How can we presume?

I have no "theory" on an alternative.
To assume that I do simply because I critique evolution is another example of flawed reasoning.

 

[James R]

As I've said. I do not believe you are open-minded enough to actually consider the facts.

If you had any "facts" worth something, you would have laid them out by now instead of running away from any possibility of debate.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have no "theory" on an alternative.
To assume that I do simply because I critique evolution is another example of flawed reasoning.

So, rather than say it is incomplete, you simply say it is wrong. Is that scientific?

I've thought for decades it was incomplete. I've looked for the possibility that there was some mechanism, Ill call it neo-Lamarkianism, that played a role in evolution. As the decades have passed and observations and discoveries have amassed, especially in the fields of epigenetics and evo-devo, I have seen less and less need for this possible mechanism.

There are still gaps, but they are filling fast. To take your position ans presume the gaps are likely permanent is not scientific.

 

[Ophiolite]

Posting delayed by suspension of thread:

Ophilolite, it's fairly simple. You did. You spent two hours on that reply. You could have typed quite a few pages in that time, but I think it went more along the lines of a few quick trips to your book collection to check you spelled the names correctly, a short rest recovering from the crick in your back caused by reaching up onto that top shelf, and probably an hour or so typing, re-reading, erasing a few lines, re-typing them for effect, and finally proofreading the finished "product" so as not to miss any mistakes.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.

Quite wrong. My polished writing is of a much higher standard than what I offer here. It helps justify the six figure salary. My post was a straight through write. The only spell check I did was a quick look at a PNAS paper because, for a strange moment, I couldn't recall if it was Meyr or Mayr.

You put quite a lot of effort into it, laddie.

Again, I think you are judging things by what it would have taken you to write it. I threw it together while watching TV and having a conversation with my wife. (Perhaps if you didn't indulge your alcoholism you would be capable of more.)

With a joke so old that most of the youngsters around here wouldn't have ever heard and probably thought was yours.

It was the first time I'd heard it too.

I think you’ve been just waiting for the opportunity, haven’t you?

Mersault, I can spot a pretentious prat or a phony from the next subway stop. I haven't been waiting for you, but when you turned up it became open season. Don't worry, when you go, there will be plenty more. Something that evolution hasn't sorted out yet.

Your only option now is to say that seeing as no one has a comprehensive understanding of evolution, then of course you'd be perfectly justified in saying you know as much as anyone. It's a bit late now, though.

I don't think anyone has a comprehensive undestanding of evolution. I think many people have a much better one than I do. I don't think you are one of them. You also fall into the category of persons unfamiliar with the literary device called hyperbole. I mean, sheez, you ask a dumb question I sure as hell am going to simulate a dumb answer. If you're to dumb to understand what's going on, well lengthy posts are the result.

I notice, with interest, that your response is all subjective, fuzzy, waffly sentiments. Nothing very much so far about the hard facts and observations of evolution. Couldn't understand Fisher's introduction of variance when you looked it up?

Next you launch into a bizarre sidebar on pms from JamesR. You really should curtail that alcohol consumption. You know I have your best interests at heart.

You aren't here to learn anything either... nor to have a "meaningful dialogue". You're here to impart your "wisdom" to the stupid.

I have learnt an enormous amount on this forum. This learning has come from four sources: expositions by knowledgeable members; references provided by such members; study initiated by points raised in discussion; opportunities to impart my 'wisdom' to others - a process that always sharpens one understanding.

I am not surprised to hear that you are here not to learn, but to pontificate and strut.

In fact, probably the reason you were so quick to jump on me is that what you saw is the part you'd really loathe about yourself

I like being arrogant. You're not very good at character analysis.

Look, the rest of your post - indeed all of your post - is heavy on rhetoric and short on any science. It is clear your knowledge of evolution is scanty and your readiness to learn from others is minimal. I see little point in continuing. No reply necessary. I don;t have the time to read any more 'material' that you may post.

 

[Baron Max]

There are still gaps, but they are filling fast. To take your position ans presume the gaps are likely permanent is not scientific.

Yes, the "gaps" are filling fast, but are they being filled with factual science or with just more speculation that "just happens" to conform to evolution?

The Galapagos finches; the finches "just happened" to float to the islands on floating sticks and debris - they "just happened" to get separated to two different islands. Well, if the finches could float on debris one time, why not dozens of times? Hundreds of times?

Ditto for the little monkeys on the South American islands.

Much of evolution is based on supposition and speculation in some attempt to explain something that might have happened millions of years ago. But are they all proven facts? Or have scientists simply accepted the one speculation that fits well into their own bias ideas - evolution?

What I find odd in the theory is that scientist, evolutionists, should be the very ones who should be the most skeptical and questioning about it. Scientist should never speculate on anything without having their own doubts about it ...and be willing to admit that no proof has been found. Yet, they don't do that. And worse, as I see it, they search for things, then when they find something, they do their level best to fit it INTO their favorite, unproven, highly speculative theory of evolution.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I want to hear what you think makes a good alternative to the theory of evolution, if it is so flawed.

Why do you and some others see this as a contest between speculative theories? Is it a contest where the one with the best plausible theory wins the scientific award for the decade or something? ...and then we all have to begin believing the winning speculative theory?

No, of course not! A theory was put forth by evolutionists in an attempt to explain the world of animals. They seem to have done that quite well, and quite thoroughly. But .....yes, there's always a "but"... have they proven that speculation or not?

And to me, those same theorists, the evolutionists, should be the very ones who are the most skeptical, the ones who should question everything and ask for more and more proof. And yet, they seem to have latched onto the theory of evolution, and now eveything they find, they wedge and push and press into gaps in their favorite theory as if it's more proof of their original speculation. Hmm, I think that's wrong. Science should be trying to prove the theory be being the most skeptical of all.

And yet many of y'all have accepted the theory as factual, and some even get downright testy and insulting and displaying bully tactics on those who question their favorite theory.

Baron Max

 

[GeoffP]

No, of course not! A theory was put forth by evolutionists in an attempt to explain the world of animals. They seem to have done that quite well, and quite thoroughly. But .....yes, there's always a "but"... have they proven that speculation or not?

Well, largely yes. The "buts" are much smaller buts now; whether a system is Fisherian or Wrightian, or at what level evolution operates.

And to me, those same theorists, the evolutionists, should be the very ones who are the most skeptical, the ones who should question everything and ask for more and more proof. And yet, they seem to have latched onto the theory of evolution, and now eveything they find, they wedge and push and press into gaps in their favorite theory as if it's more proof of their original speculation. Hmm, I think that's wrong. Science should be trying to prove the theory be being the most skeptical of all.

Yes, but we can't go reinventing the wheel every grant round. People would start to think their taxes weren't being used for anything even slightly progressive. We build on the facts and errors of the past.

And yet many of y'all have accepted the theory as factual, and some even get downright testy and insulting and displaying bully tactics on those who question their favorite theory.

Baron Max

Well, there's no excuse for testiness, but look at it from our point too: there's so much evidence for genetic variability and the process of mathematical evolution that naturally

 

[Billy T]

... I could call Baron Max out, but he's an idiot and a troll. ...

IMHO, the Baron is definitely not an idiot. I am not sure of the definition of a troll - that he may be, but I think he mainly just likes to rattle people's intellectual cages. (BTW that is a useful function - if the cage cannot withstand some rattling,then it needs to scraped or repaired.)

 

[Saquist]

So, rather than say it is incomplete, you simply say it is wrong. Is that scientific?

Do you remember the list of books you gave me. 8 In all. It was about a year ago. I read 3 of them I was able to find at the library. They were not intresting, very dry, I wonder how much I was able to retain. But everything I read supported micro evolution. I stopped reading because I presumed all the rest of them would confirm what i read. Micro Evolution is undeniable, visable and observed.

So...
I do not say evolution is wrong.
I do not believe it is incomplete.
I believe it is flawed. Evolution has been fulfilled to describe small changes. Sign it into Law on those grounds. But evolution is a theory of more than just small changes. That is what is holding it back.

Thank you for the reading though, very informative. I appreciate the exposure.
Expect no further communication.

 

[Billy T]

.... I do not believe you are open-minded enough to actually consider the facts. ... That's not a slight just my observation based on the fact that you as others default as a matter of rule (I can only presume conditioning) to attacking religion. ...

There are others here also who would like to know what you consider an alternative to evolution. What alternative explains even 1% of the know facts as well?

The statement "God made the living organisms as they are," may be your POV, if so state that clearly. That is not an explaination of anything. - That is a dogma - And assuming your are referring to the Christian concept of god, that alternative is based on a minoity POV about what is the nature of God and without any evidence that the God you refer to even exist.- I.e. The God of which religion do you refer to? Which God creator of life do you think is being attacted by the defenders of evolution as a fact or are you stating all are? I believe that now many religions do accept evolution as a fact, including major part of the Christian religion and that the position that evolution is part of god's creation plan. The Catholic Church has reverse is POV on several things it once stated that science was wrong about. For example, that Earth is not the center of the universe with sun and stars going around it, is now accepted. The acceptance of evolution is also slowing developing even in the Catholic church - now POV that God created man via evolution instead on the sixth day of creation is quite common revision of their POV.

Again, if not "God made the creatures as they are," what is your alternative?

 

[Billy T]

... Much of evolution is based on supposition and speculation in some attempt to explain something that might have happened millions of years ago. ...

Yes that is true. After some scientists began to consider Darwin's idea a more explanatory suggestion for the variety of creatures observed than the prior POV (God made them as they are) Evolution was mainly speculation as little had been found. Some was wrong (at least by current POV). For example when I was young no one was suggesting that the birds evolved from dinosaurs. I do not know exact when half of the evolution supporters took this POV about birds, but those that did PREDICTED that someday a fossil of a dinosaur with feathers would be found. I think the first featured dinosaur was found in China about 15 or 20 years ago. Now several have been found.

One of the important confirming tests of any theory is the ability to correctly predict currently unknown observations. Not only does evolution explain many superficially unrelated facts but it has on more than one occasion predicted what will be found in the fossil records. - That is quite impressive to those with an open mind.

 

[Saquist]

There are others here also who would like to know what you consider an alternative to evolution. What alternative explains even 1% of the know facts as well?

mirco evolution explains the 1% and less than 1% of animals.

The statement "God made the living organisms as they are," may be your POV, if so state that clearly. That is not an explaination of anything.

You are not asking me what my opinion is.
You are not asking me what my conclusions are.

I can state my conclusions but they do not equate to scientific theory.
Just as a court's judgement can not be equated to scientific Law neither can mine. My Judgement is that God does exist. That judgement is based on the available facts incited by the necessity to come to a reasonable conclusion in a timely matter and subject to appeal by admittance by new evidence.

The Catholic Church has reverse is POV on several things it once stated that science was wrong about. For example, that Earth is not the center of the universe with sun and stars going around it, is now accepted. The acceptance of evolution is also slowing developing even in the Catholic church - now POV that God created man via evolution instead on the sixth day of creation is quite common revision of their POV.

Unfortunantlly the Roman Catholic church is better described as a Dominion of Unwitting Error and Contradiction. This extends to their own beliefs as well as the world around them. It is better to defer this group's actions through history as a series of unremitting subjugation, and participation in murder, holocaust and manipulation in affairs that according to Christ's standards they should have never have had any involvement or intrest.

Use them as a character witness if you wish to your own detriment.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

People are comparably taller now than they were a century ago, on average. Perhaps this is just in the US, though. Does this mean that the humans in the US have evolved, that God has willed them tallness, both, or neither? Why?

 

[Billy T]

...Micro Evolution is undeniable, visable and observed. ...

Can you be a little more clear as to the extent of micro evolution? I assume that it would include the rapid development of by selection in a hostile environment of new germs, which resist the anti-biotic, from the old germs that did not resist it.

What about the rapid (8000 years) development of the new Preá species from the Santa Catalina Guinea Pigs? - See Post 83 and some related that follow.

What about the slower and more typical rate of development that transformed at least some of the dinosaurs into birds (which then further diverged into many different species of birds we see today)? Are you not impressed by the prediction a more than a decade in advance of the discovery that a feathered dinosaur fossil would be found? Is not the good test of this slower production the ability to predict some of the not yet found intermediaries?

There have been many intermediaries, most not yet found (some probably never will be) between Baron's fish that crawled up on land and the current Gorilla that swings in the trees and avoid water if possible. So I assume that evolutionary development is well beyond what you are referring to with "micro evolution" but I am unclear as to where you draw the line between "definitely proven true" and "still highly doubtful"

So are the preá an example of micro evolution? Are the birds from dinosaurs and example of micro- evolution, now that feathered dinosaurs have been found to confirm the predictions?

Also, and quite important, is what prevent the process you accept from also functioning (over longer times with more intermediaries) from creating greater changes? Does God step in and say: “Enough is enough – get back to the form I made you in.” If not that, what then blocks continued change (even fish to gorilla)?

 

[sniffy]

People are comparably taller now than they were a century ago, on average. Perhaps this is just in the US, though. Does this mean that the humans in the US have evolved, that God has willed them tallness, both, or neither? Why?

Ever heard of the word 'nutrition'?

 

[Billy T]

... My Judgement is that God does exist. That judgement is based on the available facts incited by the necessity to come to a reasonable conclusion in a timely matter ...

OK. but clearly from what you said, more harshly than I would, the Catholic church is not describing that God very well. I will also assume that much of what is written in the bible is at best to be understood figuratively, not literally (Sun did not stop in the heavens for battle to continue, etc.) so where do you find these facts you refer to? If that is too tough to put into words (just some sort of feeling you have) can you give an example of a fact that points more to God as the cause that to the explanation that most scientist think is more plausible and explanatory?

There are some facts that science does not yet have a widely accepted single explanation of. For example, the origins of life. At times I lean most to the idea that some crystal surface facilitated the chance assemble of films that could come off, roll up, and have ends pinched off to make a proto-type “tube cell” with liquid interior that might have selective permeability to concentrate chemical inside, grow longer and then get broken into two shorter parts, but there are other plausible ideas also that do not assemble organic films on crystal surfaces as the starting point. For example, electrical discharges forming amino acids etc. or molecules with one end hydrophobic so that many of these molecules do align to form a film (Many of your cells do have this structure “inside surface is different from outside surface” still.)

I could accept that God made the first reproducing quasi-life units and then Darwin process took over, except that is really just sweeping the problem of first cause under the rug - I.e. where did God come from? If some greater god made him that just sweep the question of how it all got started under a second rug. etc. AFAIK, there is no good idea as to where energy/matter came from, but some model of how time was made is known (I do not understand it, but people smarter than me seem to.)

 

[Baron Max]

Can you be a little more clear as to the extent of micro evolution? I assume that it would include the rapid development of by selection in a hostile environment of new germs, which resist the anti-biotic, from the old germs that did not resist it.

Not wanting to answer for Saquist, but I think he's alluding to the fact that no micro-biological evidence has been found or produced which transforms one specie into another, different specie. The bacteria noted above remain the same specie, tho' somewhat changed. That's a whole lot different to a fish transforming into a gorilla!

What about the rapid (8000 years) development of the new Preá species from the Santa Catalina Guinea Pigs? - See Post 83 and some related that follow.

And again, Billy, you have no evidence which proves that there was no outside influence or other species that didn't "float to the island on sticks and debris", thus interbreeding and/or complete taking over the existing population.

What about the slower and more typical rate of development that transformed at least some of the dinosaurs into birds (which then further diverged into many different species of birds we see today)? Are you not impressed by the prediction a more than a decade in advance of the discovery that a feathered dinosaur fossil would be found? Is not the good test of this slower production the ability to predict some of the not yet found intermediaries?

Can anyone prove that the bones/fossils found of the feathered creature was actually anything else PRIOR to becoming a feathered dino? They found a fossil ...whoop-dee-doo. But where's the dino that did NOT have feathers that's the precusor? Ahh, one giant leap for speculation, but not much in the form of evidence for evolution.

And I think the feathered dino is a pretty good example of how evolutionists force their findings into the theory instead of the other way around. One lousy fossil of a feathered wing of one lousy creature ....and evolutionists immediately leap to the conclusion that once upon a time, in a age far, far away, that same creature was once a completely different creature. And that same kind of "evidence" is constantly being found ....and most often, it too, is "forced" into the theory, even if they have to use hammers or clubs to do it. See? Speculation.

Baron Max

 

[GeoffP]

Ever heard of the word 'nutrition'?

Sniffy!

How's the hamstering?

(NB: Geoff goeth now to the other place. No. Not Hell. The worse place.)

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Nutrition is a myth fostered by hamsters among men.