Denial of evolution II

[Saquist]

Clearly you believe the ability to reproduce rapidly and in large numbers offers an improved means of passing ones genes to future generations. Having four offspring rather than one is 'better', having one hundred offspring rather than four is 'better', having one thousand rather than one hundred is better. Nonsense.The key for evolution is how many of these offspring survive to reproduce.

You missundertand.
I don't mean simply reproducing rapidly and in large numbers offers an improved means of passing on genes to future generations. That only increases the odds of genetic survival.

I mean Asexual reproduction, itself is a guarantee of passing those genes on to the next generation exactly as the adaptations are in the original cell while sexual reproduction is subject to the gene shuffle. Sexual reproduction also tends to come with extened maturation. Another benefit bacteria do not need. That WITH limited offspring and a far, far, far slower reproduction rate make the comparison academicly flawed to assume because you found it in bacteria in then must be true for everyone else and I believe Baron is fighting that particular battle.

 

[Baron Max]

How odd?? Fraggle made a post and now that I wanted to respond, I see it's gone. But that's okay, he brought up a comparison about trials and convictions that I thought was interesting.

In my comment about circumstantial evidence, he mentioned how often "we" convict suspects to life in prison on mere circumstantial evidence. Implying, of course, that if that was good enough to send a person to life in prison, it was good enough to believe in evolution. So........

Ah, Fraggle, what an excellent example! Let's talk about it:
You're right, about me at least, that I'd convict a suspect on circumstantial evidence without giving it much thought. And being the mean, conservative sonuvabeech, I'd probably also recommend that he be sent directly to the gas chambers!

But, ...ah, yes, ...but you, Fraggle, and most everyone else at this site, are so freakin' liberal and such advocates of "human rights" that y'all would not only NOT convict him on such meager circumstantial evidence, you'd protest in the streets to get him set free!

And yet, here with evolution, you and the other same liberals not only believe the meager circumstantial evidence of evolution, you're also loudly verbal in your advocacy and almost worship of it, in addition to being almost militant about it. Odd, ain't it?

Meager circumstantial evidence is not enough to convict a criminal suspect, but it's prefectly fine to answer one of life's major questions of human existence. Odd, ain't it?

Baron Max

 

[Billy T]

...And being the mean, conservative sonuvabeech, I'd probably also recommend that he be sent directly to the gas chambers!... Baron Max

You know i like you, find you useful here etc. but I think that is too drastic and expensive. I had a good friend quite like you with much better idea. Cheaper idea and it never punishes the wrong guy. It was so simple and was a beautiful solution for crime in poor neighborhoods.

The Police make a store with well barred big glass windows in front displaying the stolen goods they have recovered, and in the back, on the rear alley there is one small unbarred window, high up, but one can get thru it if standing on a garbage can. The rear of the store is completely dark and the inside rear walls smooth as glass all the way down to the deep pool below that window. In that pool is a strong lye solution and all of the surround walls are also glass smooth.

My friend died of cancer before he could build this neighborhood improvement center. I think you might want to do some good and take his idea over instead of just attack any intelligent post you read. Give it some thought and let me know what you decide.

BTW, this post is very much "on thread." It shows how a change in the environment can make a selective modification of the gene pool to eliminate genes tending to make less productive and anti-social individuals. I.e. it is a Darwinian approach to crime.

 

[James R]

Max:

So you think it should be a little contest ...who has the best wild-guess scenarios?

Science is a contest - of ideas. Those ideas that turn out to be most useful are the ones that survive the self-correcting mechanisms of science. The test of a good theory is how accurately it accords with observations and how good it is at making predictions and generating fruitful new lines of inquiry.

Biologists believe in evolution because all the available evidence supports the theory and because no viable alternative theory has been put forward.

So because there's no solid proof, we must pick something, anything, so that we have something to ....believe?

There is solid proof - lots of it - as I explained to you previously.

All of which brings me back to the important question: Why decide on any one best guess? Why not just wait until all the evidence is in, then decide?

Because "all the evidence" will never be in. Science is a process of gradually building on knowledge. All scientific theories are subject to change in the light of new evidence. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[Baron Max]

Science is a contest - of ideas. Those ideas that turn out to be most useful are the ones that survive the self-correcting mechanisms of science. ...

Yeah, I was reading some stuff on the Internet today ....about how there's so much controversy between biologists, anthropologists, etc on the theory of evolution. Interesting, huh? And even some of the touted DNA crap is argued about almost violently.

If evolution was as certain as y'all seem to think, then why is there so much controversy about it? Why is there no consensus of scientists if it's so great a theory?

Because "all the evidence" will never be in. Science is a process of gradually building on knowledge. All scientific theories are subject to change in the light of new evidence. Nothing is set in stone.

And yet you feel so strongly about it that you're willing to insult me and ridicule me on a public forum? You get so obviously upset and angry, slinging insults and personal taunts. Almost like the belief in god, huh, James???

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Max:

Yeah, I was reading some stuff on the Internet today ....about how there's so much controversy between biologists, anthropologists, etc on the theory of evolution.

There's practically zero controversy among biologists about the fact of evolution - i.e. that it occurs much as Darwin said, that it applies at the species level, etc. All the actual scientific disputes are at the margins. No biologist worth his salt actually doubts that evolution occurs.

Of course, if you only read the internet, you'll find a whole lot of propaganda from creationists and the like, and you might well think that there's some huge argument about the truth of evolution among actual scientists. But that would be a totally false impression.

The same can be said for global warming, for example. It is estimated that about 2% of climate experts think that human-caused global warming is not occurring. i.e. for every 50 climate experts, 1 of them thinks human-caused global warming is rubbish, while 49 think that it is happening. But this is very far from the impression you're likely to get reading internet forums or other material from non-experts. You'd think that there was real scientific dispute and maybe guess that the issue was 50-50 among scientists.

Interesting, huh? And even some of the touted DNA crap is argued about almost violently.

This is so non-specific as to be useless. If you wish to actually discuss this, you'll have to be specific.

And yet you feel so strongly about it that you're willing to insult me and ridicule me on a public forum?

I have little patience with people who refuse to make an effort to learn. I have even less patience with people who talk from a position of almost complete ignorance, pretending that they have a solid grounding in whatever they are preaching.

 

[Baron Max]

There's practically zero controversy among biologists about the fact of evolution - i.e. that it occurs much as Darwin said, that it applies at the species level, etc.

Hell, even I agree with it on a species level ....within a species there's documented changes by the ton! What I haven't agreed to yet is the leap from fish to gorilla or from amoeba to human ...or any other such jump across specie lines.

Of course, if you only read the internet, you'll find a whole lot of propaganda from creationists and the like, and you might well think that there's some huge argument about the truth of evolution among actual scientists. But that would be a totally false impression.

So reading about evolution on the Internet, I should only select sites that are biased towards evolution, and disregard any other sites with different info?

Can you show any concrete, solid, undisputed evidence of a specie that turned into another specie? And, please, Billy's prea monkeys don't count as I've already punched a big hole in it.

Baron Max

 

[Zeno]

16 Reasons Why I Reject Creation.

1. Because literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology and the majority is always correct, just like in the days before Copernicus.

2. Because evolution is always mentioned on T.V. and in movies, therefore it must be true.

3. Because I believe that scientists are objective men in white coats that don't have any preconceived biases and are searching for the truth.

4. Because I believe that evolution has been observed in the laboratory. (of course I'm not using the word evolution in the usual sense, but who cares?)

5. Because there's a book out there that claims that living organisms were designed, but that book also has rediculous, unbelieveable other stories, therefore living organisms can't be designed.

6. Because it is rational for me to believe that I'm descended from a fish.

7. Because I believe that in order for birds to evolve from four-legged animals on the ground, the two front limbs had to go through an intermediate stage where the limbs were neither legs for running nor wings for flying and the animal had struggle with this disability for millions of years until finally the two front limbs became wings. I know disadvantages should be eliminated instead of preserved by natural selection, but we'll just make a teeny-tiny exception in this case.

8. Because I've seen these really big numbers that somehow show how improbable evolution is, but I wasn't very good in math.

9. Because I can't believe in something which I can't see, no matter how strong the evidence.

10. Because evolution is science and creation is religion, therefore organisms evolved.

11. Because I believe that there are tons of intermediate fossils, but then why was the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium' formulated?

12. Because anybody who believes that organisms were designed must be a bible-thumping nutcase.

13. Because some bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics.

14. Because apes and people kind of look similar.

15. Because even though children resemble their parents because the same genes are being passed down from generation to generation and no new genetic information comes into existence I prefer to believe that new information will 'magically' come from somewhere.

16. Because I really like Penn & Teller.

 

[Billy T]

... Billy's prea monkeys don't count as I've already punched a big hole in it. Baron Max

No, not true. You have suggested several much less probable alternatives. I did too in a recent post -i.e. it is possible that alien space craft landed on the preá's tiny island and some of the the space traveler's pets escaped. Suggesting an unsupported, improbable alternative which predicts nothing does not blast a hole in one that is supported by evidence, is correctly predictive, and is consistent with more than a million other observed facts.

As I (and also James R) have told you there typically are many conceptually possible ways to explain any set of current facts. One can then simple refuse to accept any alternative (which seem to be you preferred POV) or try to evaluated the various alternatives for both internal and external consistency* and plausibility. If it turns out that more than two different alternatives are both consistent with other facts and approximately equally plausible that one has no rational basis to chose between them. That is not the case with evolution theory - nothing even comes close to explaining the facts as well or is even remotely as plausible. Also most of the alternatives do not correctly predict anything later discovered, as evolution theory often has.

For example, with the preá, evolution theory sets forth 5 different conditions (see post 298, the ** footnote for them) which will accelerate the rate of new specie development and ALL 5 were present for the evolution of the preá in only 8000 years. Your alternative predicted nothing (nor did my “alien pets escaped” alternative.) Evolution theory is integrated with a huge range of other sciences now. - From how the immune system works to who prospers on wall street!

---------------
*One of your unthinking alternatives, in analogy with the idea that the preá drifted over on floating wood like the Gallops finches, not only is highly improbably because there are none, and not even any bones of any, on the lush big island, which could support 100,000 they drifted from by that alternative but also because it assumes that it all happened less than 8000 years ago, – I.e. after the sea had risen from the melting ice. The accepted POV has the ancestors of the prea’ on the land when it was still connected to the big island more than 8000 years ago. The differences of the preá from their ancestor species (much smaller, more forward looking eyes) are also exactly what is to be expected by evolution theory, given the new conditions on their island.

 

[Ophiolite]

For Zeno (there really is no paradox).

16 Reasons for Rejecting Creation

1. There is no evidence.
2. There is no evidence.
3. There is no evidence.
4. There is no evidence.
5. There is no evidence.
6. There is no evidence.
7. There is no evidence.
8. There is no evidence.
9. There is no evidence.
10.There is no evidence.
11.There is no evidence.
12.There is no evidence.
13.There is no evidence.
14.There is no evidence.
15.There is no evidence.
16.There is no evidence.

 

[James R]

Max:

What I haven't agreed to yet is the leap from fish to gorilla or from amoeba to human ...or any other such jump across specie lines.

That's because you don't really understand evolution.

So reading about evolution on the Internet, I should only select sites that are biased towards evolution, and disregard any other sites with different info?

For now, yes. Until you get a decent grasp of the theory. After that, you can go back and look at some of the idiocy - when you're equipped to pick holes in it.

Can you show any concrete, solid, undisputed evidence of a specie that turned into another specie?

Yes, but I don't really see why I should make an effort to find these things for you when you refuse to make any efforts yourself.

I suggest you stark with www.talkorigins.org and get back to me if you have questions.

 

[phlogistician]

Max, please watch the video I linked on page 15. It will answer some of your questions, and hopefully, improve your understanding of this topic. It's only ten minutes long. Watch it and get back to us.

 

[Ophiolite]

And yet you feel so strongly about it that you're willing to insult me and ridicule me on a public forum?

Only because we can't afford a full page in the Washington Post.

 

[Baron Max]

No, not true. You have suggested several much less probable alternatives.

Less probable? So it's back to the "best guess" scenarios? And y'all call that "proof"? Biologists/evolutionists aren't scientists, they're guessers?

Almost all of you, except James, admit that there is no direct proof of one species turning into another species. Your Prea example can be easily explained by them floating over from the mainland ...that no bones have been found on the mainland ...YET... proves/disproves nothing.

One feathered wing proves that there were winged creatures, it says nothing about any transition from one creature to another ...regardless of some biologist's "guess/prediction".

The theory of evolution is a simply a "best guess" ...that's all it is. If it had any real proof, then y'all would have presented it or I'd be able to find it on Internet searches. Instead, all I find are discoveries of isolated fossilzed bones, then guesses about what those bones were ...neatly forced into the theory instead of the other way around.

I'm getting sick of talking about this! If y'all want to believe, then I suppose it's just like religion ...I should be tolerant of your beliefs, regardless of the lack of scientific evidence.

Baron Max

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm getting sick of talking about this!

Mod note: And I'm sick of you. You are a troll, pure and simple. Multiple people have taken the time to correct your ignorance of the scientific method and your woeful understanding of the theory you are attempting to deny. Yet you continue to spout the same misunderstandings time and time again. Thus, it is clear to me that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and I won’t stand for it any more. You are specifically attemtping to provoke with your posts, so your posts in this thread from here on in will be deleted. Good riddance.

 

[phlogistician]

Max, watch the video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel_page

It will explain evolution to you in easy to understand terms. IF you have any further questions, please then ask them. Takes notes as you watch the vid perhaps?

 

[Ophiolite]

Mod note: And I'm sick of you. You are a troll, pure and simple. Multiple people have taken the time to correct your ignorance of the scientific method and your woeful understanding of the theory you are attempting to deny. Yet you continue to spout the same misunderstandings time and time again. Thus, it is clear to me that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and I won’t stand for it any more. You are specifically attemtping to provoke with your posts, so your posts in this thread from here on in will be deleted. Good riddance.

I got effectively booted out of The Science Forum for a much more restrained moderator outburst after much more intense provocation. Do you think your comments were wise?

 

[Liebling]

Interestingly, I am against not letting Baron have his say.

Mostly, I just ignore him because of his always dodging the evidence and information you give and generally wasting my time. But sometimes, albeit rarely, he thinks before he posts and you actually get a glimpse of how the other side sees things and you can come at the argument from a different angle.

He's not really doing anything banworthy, and we are all adults who can skip over his posts and/or ignore him. I don't need a content filter for my sciforums. There is no rule about wasting peoples time, or alot of the sciforum "regulars" would have been removed or unable to psot for a long time. Besides, learning to ignore Baron Max is a good life lesson because there are people like him you will enounter every day and there won't be a cop around to shut them up.

I don't like Max, I think he's way too closed minded, stubborn and obsessed with being contrary to have a good debate with, but to exclude him completely takes away from our ability to reason around him. He doesn't add much... I know, but silencing him isn't the answer either.

 

[Billy T]

{BARON's alternatives explanations for the existence of the new specie, the preá, (see post 83&131) were called "less probable" than evolution's explanation.} Less probable? So it's back to the "best guess" scenarios? And y'all call that "proof"? Biologists/evolutionists aren't scientists, they're guessers?...

As Hercules Rockefeller notes you are being a troll, but I like you as your posts do provide me with the opportunity to teach, so I will take this bait.

You are not even a very creative troll as I have three times now pointed out that EVERY FACT or belief, except one* is a "best guess" by calling your attention to the ~300 year old discussion of Bishop Berkeley, who concluded that all one can be certain exist is his thinking spirit. I.e. the Earth, sun, water, etc could all be illusions his spirit is given to perceive. There is no way to be absolutely certain any material thing actually exists. Not even your body with its assumed nerve impulses tricking your (assumed to exist) brain into the perception that there is a "real world" "out there." I.e. All of physics is in this sense, just a best guess.

Despite this possibility almost all do accept that the Earth, sun, etc. do exist. Most of us also accept as fact many other best guesses. We only doubt things for which there is no observable evidence, like the existence of Unicorns, God, life naturally on the moon, etc.

There are some things that are possible, (i.e. not against any laws we have come to accept) that we need to keep an open mind about, such as the existence of life on planet in other solar systems or the exact chemical composition of the Earth's core, etc. as we have no information about these things yet.

Because evolution theory has been subjected to so much attack for 150 years and not once has any inconsistency with the physical laws been found and because thousands of recent facts, like the preá, new stains of flu, DNA with mutations, etc. have been discovered and all are that are exactly as the theory predicts or completely consistent with it, we think that evolution theory is an extremely well confirmed "Best Guess." i.e. as well confirmed as any other accepted theory out there (but NO theory is certain, that is impossible as Berkeley may be correct that nothing material actually exists).

Since you can no longer troll here, why not read Berkeley’s unassailable logical (many have tried and failed to find a flaw) position and use it to assert in new thread the Earth does not go around the sun as that is just a "guess" and not yet proven. You can cite Berkeley and note that it is quite possible neither even exist.

-----------------
*As Descartes noted, it is impossible to doubt or deny you are at least a thinking “bodiless being” or spirit. Beyond that that you can only go by making assumptions. Everything else, the existence of all material things, are just “best guesses.” Descartes did do a good job of blowing smoke to hid this truth. I.e. in about only 20 pages he had "logically" concluded that God had to send his son to die on the cross to save mankind. Few ever read his text so this is as not well known as "cogito ergo sum."

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't like Max, I think he's way too closed minded, stubborn and obsessed with being contrary to have a good debate with, but to exclude him completely takes away from our ability to reason around him. He doesn't add much... I know, but silencing him isn't the answer either.

That saved me the trouble. Thanks.

Complete agreement with BillyT's post too.