Denial of evolution II

[Oli]

k well i have a problem with believin in evolution because it just doesnt make sense.

Then you don't understand what "making sense" means either.

and scientific laws contradict it.

No they don't.

but we dont change into a monkey or something with fur to stay warm

Why would we?
Or have you perhaps misunderstood what evolution means?
Let me guess...

oh ya, and for the evolutionists who say that evolution is based on solid scientific facts

It's said because it's true. It is based on solid scientific facts.

you are putting your trust into somthing that has not been seen, proven, and contradicts scientific laws, and cannot be recreated or proven in anyway

On the contrary: it's been been observed and proven, and cannot (since it's a part of science) contradict scientific laws.

and there have been people to make fake fossils and exaggerate what happens in the womb when a baby is being developed just to make people believe what they are saying

Yes, and they were shown to be frauds by... scientists and science.
One bad apple doesn't make whole crop rotten.

and that in the vastness of space, two molecules just were perfectly aligned, going at the perfect speed, to collide and create amino acids, and you tell me if evolution does not take any faith at all.

You really have no clue what you're talking about do you?

 

[Norsefire]

As per the original Denial of Evolution thread, this second instalment is also a quarantine area for threads that regurgipost all the usual creationist/evolution denialism stuff, such as:

-- scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power;

Why would they do that? This sounds childish to me

-- evolution is just a theory;

A theory with a boat load of evidence, as compared to creationism

-- Darwin recanted on his deathbed;

This means nothing

no one has seen a bacterium evolve into a fish

Because they don't.

-- there are no transitional fossils;

What about the human family tree?
-- speciation has never been seen;
-- okay, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not;

....and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology.


But we’ll open with some satire that deals with many of the typical evolution denial attempts....

Evolution occurs

 

[Ophiolite]

It is off subject, but Why (out of reach)?

That sounds prudish and damaging to them should they be interested enough to read one. When I was raising my kids, nothing on TV or in books was off limits. I think this is good to start when they are very young and have not yet become squeamish or ashamed by the facts of life - but absorbed them as they can understand.

I have a low opinion of Dawkins. He is guilty, in my view, of dogmatic stances on certain matters concerning evolution. He takes the position that something must be so, simply because he'd like it to be so. It is done very subtly, but it is done.

This is a shame, as he has a sharp mind, but such a dogmatic stance feeds the arguments of creationists who routinely claim that all scientists are dogmatic.

My remark concerning placing them on the top shelf was a piece of dramatic licence. My children are both adults, my grandchild not yet old enough to read. But when she is she will be welcome to read anything I have, though if she heads for Dawkins I'll nudge her along the alphabet to Dennet.

 

[James R]

k well i have a problem with believin in evolution because it just doesnt make sense.

It doesn't make sense to you. Have you considered that maybe this is your problem, not ours?

i mean it has never been observed before and scientific laws contradict it.

Out of interest, exactly which scientific laws do you believe contradict evolution, and why?

even darwin himself was just making observations saying that 2 types of birds in 2 different places look different, probably because they adapted to that surrounding to survive better. now that i can agree with because apply it to us...if its cold we do what...shiver and get goose bumps, which for those of you who dont know, is when the skin tightens to hold in heat lol. but we dont change into a monkey or something with fur to stay warm

Evolution doesn't say one animal changes into another.

...and there have been people to make fake fossils and exaggerate what happens in the womb when a baby is being developed just to make people believe what they are saying...

Yes, there have been frauds. We know about them mainly because scientists have exposed them.

and that in the vastness of space, two molecules just were perfectly aligned, going at the perfect speed, to collide and create amino acids, and you tell me if evolution does not take any faith at all.

We know for a fact that amino acids can form in space, because meteors have been found that contain them. Do you dispute this fact?

 

[James R]

I have a low opinion of Dawkins. He is guilty, in my view, of dogmatic stances on certain matters concerning evolution.

Perhaps so, but maybe this isn't a fault. Which matters are you thinking of, in particular?

He takes the position that something must be so, simply because he'd like it to be so. It is done very subtly, but it is done.

Where?

My children are both adults, my grandchild not yet old enough to read. But when she is she will be welcome to read anything I have, though if she heads for Dawkins I'll nudge her along the alphabet to Dennet.

Dennett agrees with Dawkins, as far as I can tell.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, I am. (Good at showing off.)
You're here because you couldn't let it pass, whereas if I hadn't posted at all, you might have done just that.

Meursalt, trust me, amongst the woo-woos, the rednecks and the mentally ill, there are some sharp cookies around here. They are all very much aware that you are full of hot air. You may think I am a little prick, but that is all that is necessary to deflate a gas bag such as yourself.

.... he says, and then spends two hours or so doing precisely that.

Don't be silly. You still don't get it. This isn't about me. This is about you. I'm helping you flaunt it. However, it is not your intellect or knowledge, but rather your lack of either that is on display.

Alright.
For the benefit of the audience -
Ophiolite would have us believe that, at some point in his early teens, he discovered the theory of evolution, did a bit of reading and instantly knew all there was to know about it.

Wow! English really is your second language. Perhaps I should be gentler with you. Here, I'll try to make it simpler for you. You made this remark: "....I used to have when very young, (with) some vague romantic idea (admitted or not) that "Mother Nature" somehow had a hand in the proceedings, making conscious decisions on what was beneficial and what was not. "

This is a naive idea. I am at a loss as to how you could have arrived at such an idea. From my expression of surprise you leap to a conclusion that I am claiming an early comprehensive knowledge of the subject. However, nowhere in my response do I implictly or explicitly state that I have now, or ever have had a comprehensive understanding of evolution. (That's the sort of foolish remark I would expect to emerge from you.)

For the record I thought very little about evolution, other than as a black box mechanism for producing diversity, until I was fourteen or fifteen, at which point I read 'On the Origin of Species'. A reasonable understanding of the concept began to emerge during my palaeontological and botanical studies at University, and has continued to develop during further decades of reading. Incidentally, reading which does not centre on a piece of pop-science writing by a dogmatic egotist.

(By the way, in your original post you call Darwin's piece, 'Origin of the Species'. The only people I have ever seen make this telling error before are persons who have never read the work and know almost nothing about the subject. Hmmm.)

I'l get to the rest tomorrow. Takes too much concentration to actually reply to the nuts'n'bolts.

Oh, deary me. What you mean is you need time to consult wikipedia to find out who de Vries and Fisher and Mayr are. (You see I even credit you with having heard of Mendel and of Gould.) But go ahead. If it is important to your ego that you self deceive I'll indulge you, for the moment.

 

[Ophiolite]

Which matters are you thinking of, in particular?
Where?

James, these are reasonable questions. Unfortunately I haven't read anything of Dawkins for several years apart from The Ancestor's Tale. I have acknowledged that in this work he seems to have avoided the dogma trap. (Or else he's got even better at the subtle approach.)

I'll dig out one or two of his earlier works and offer an analysis to support my contentions. (These contentions aren't new. Anyone foolish enough to do a search will find me berating Dawkins work in dozens of posts on this and other forums.) I'm not going to get to this in a hurry, but when I do I'll post it as a separate thread to discuss this aspect of Dawkins. I expect to get lambasted when I do, since Dawkins is one of the Gods of the 'lets bash creationists' movement. (Yes, the irony is intentional.) I jus think he is a false god.

I hope you find this acceptable and do not think I am trying to avoid a proper answer.

Dennett agrees with Dawkins, as far as I can tell.

It is not the underlying belief I am criticising, but the manner of presenting it. Dennet is scrupulously logical in all of his arguments. He never takes a point further than the evidence or reason will allow. He specifies limitations to our thinking with clarity and is not afraid to pinpoint weaknesses. I do not see these attributes to an adequate degree in the writings of Dawkins.

 

[James R]

Fair enough, Ophiolite.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hi there jsmith. Some of these points have already been addressed by others, but I hope you can stick with me while I go through them with you.

k well i have a problem with believin in evolution because it just doesnt make sense.

I can understand that it doesn't make sense to you, but it makes sense to a lot of people. In order for that sense to emerge you have to do a bit of study.

One of the things that Darwin studied was the writing of the Reverend Thomas Malthus. Malthus had observed in an essay written at the end of the 18th century that population growth can outstrip the ability to produce sustenance for that population. Darwin knew that the consequence of this was that many organisms died before they had a chance to reproduce. He also knew that there was much natural variation within any particular group of organisms. (Some were taller, or shorter, or fatter, or slower, or could digest certain foodstuffs while others couldn't.)

He then made the brilliant leap of suggesting that some of these variations would be more likely to survive in a particular environment. They would be fitter. They would survive to produce offspring and so their fitter variations would be passed to their offspring. That's evolution, or a key part of it at least. What doesn't make sense about that?

.

i mean it has never been observed before

Well, it has been observed numerous times: in the laboratory, in the fossil record, in the field. BillyT has offered an example, I think in this thread, of it occuring with some small rodents in Brazil. If you wish I can give your references for all of this, but rest assured, evolution has been observed.

.

even darwin himself was just making observations saying that 2 types of birds in 2 different places look different, probably because they adapted to that surrounding to survive better.

You do Darwin a great disservice. After he returned from the voyage on the Beagle he spent some decades researching and developing his ideas. He took to breeding pigeons to get a better idea of the character of the selection process. He investigated artificial selection in all sorts of domestic animals to aid his understanding of natural selection, where it is the fittest that survive to reproduce. His observations went much further than the Galapagos finches.

.

now that i can agree with because apply it to us...if its cold we do what...shiver and get goose bumps, which for those of you who dont know, is when the skin tightens to hold in heat lol. but we dont change into a monkey or something with fur to stay warm

You seem to be confused here. Changes to the individual, unless it is a change to the germ cells, have nothing to do with evolution.
Goose bumps are not a tightening of the skin, they are a process which lifts the hairs on our body into a more nearly vertical position. Guess what. That is a hangover from the times when our ancestors had a thick fur and raising goosebumps effectively thickened the fur layer, trapping more insulating air within it.
.

and even scientific laws contradict it.

I know of no scientific law that contradicts it. If you are going to say the second law of thermodynamics, then I shall say, stop parroting what you read on creationists website and try to learn something.

 

[Saquist]

As per the original Denial of Evolution thread, this second instalment is also a quarantine area for threads that regurgipost all the usual creationist/evolution denialism stuff, such as:

-- scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power;
-- evolution is just a theory;
-- Darwin recanted on his deathbed;
-- no one has seen a bacterium evolve into a fish;
-- there are no transitional fossils;
-- speciation has never been seen;
-- okay, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not;

....and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology.


But we’ll open with some satire that deals with many of the typical evolution denial attempts....

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.

Promoting the attitude is the very reason why it is simple to forsee a dangerous and perhaps holocaust like clash between the two in the future, likely in the form of secularlism.

Science is supposed to be a fine tool to uncover the secrets to the universe and world around us and delve deeper into how things work and even to inspire our creative charateristic. It's not a weapon to wield just as the Quaran, Tora, or Bible is not to be used to attack and ensalve. Why repeat the mistakes religion has made? Why breed hate?

Is not Science supposed to be objective?
Is not Science supposed to open doors?
Is it not Science's place to benefit Man?

If these are truths about Science why does this body and other Forums of Scientist encourage hate and hostility to represent them to what is surely an already stubborn world? Hate for Hate sake?

There are real objective reasons why Evolution has not been accepted by knowledgable 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. And here is the reasons why.

2. Evolution has experimental detractors. 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) We also see a constant recurring variation of mutations limiting the variety further.

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 Litterally designing out the possibility of massive change when combined with the lack of variety in helpful mutations they present quite a while which evolution even with time really can not over come as.

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. As a result of Billions of Fossils and more than 150 years of finding them that trend never materialize.

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.

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, 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.

While creationist continue to propose an inevident six day plan for the universe more leveled and scientificly minded christians recognize the meeting between the Bible and what it actually says as opposed to traditional lore, and science is possible but the line between evolution and creation is drawn.

Objectivity the jury is still out on how far evolution goes
Yet we can assuredly say Dinosaurs did not walk with man and the Universe was not created in six days.

 

[Clucky]

oh ya, and for the evolutionists who say that evolution is based on solid scientific facts and christians, or people who believe in intelligent design have beliefs based solildly on faith, maybe you should take a step back and think about what you believe in. you are putting your trust into somthing that has not been seen, proven, and contradicts scientific laws, and cannot be recreated or proven in anyway, and there have been people to make fake fossils and exaggerate what happens in the womb when a baby is being developed just to make people believe what they are saying, and that in the vastness of space, two molecules just were perfectly aligned, going at the perfect speed, to collide and create amino acids, and you tell me if evolution does not take any faith at all.

You obviously don't even have a basic understanding of Darwin, his theory, or biology.

And, unfortunately for you, we have observed speciation, adaptation and natural selection. The only faith that we have is that evolution will continue to be consistent with the evidence. I'd like to know which scientific laws you think it contradicts.

 

[Billy T]

...{Evolution supporters} trust into somthing that has not been seen, proven, and contradicts scientific laws, and cannot be recreated or proven in anyway, ...

... i have a problem with believin in evolution because it just doesnt make sense. i mean it has never been observed before and scientific laws contradict it. ... we dont change into a monkey or something with fur to stay warm

What scientific law does evolution violate? I know of none. In fact these laws seems to demand evolution occurs if off springs variations happen by chance which are better adapted to a changing environment.

Direct observation of the creation or evolution of a new species of large, multiple-cellular, animals is not possible as it is a slow process. Typically this takes much long than the period in which mankind has had the ability to write records; However, we can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals in only 8000 years has occurred at least once. See post 83 for report from news paper and 131 for more data, map, etc. from organization concerned with extinction. For it to happen the gene pool was very tiny (not more than 40 animals); there were no predators who might eat the better adapted animal before it could reproduce; the entire population was under great stress for all of the 8000 years, literally on the edge of extinction, so any slight advantage was very significant aid to not being among those that starved to death. Obviously scientists were not observing 8000 years ago, but we are certain the sea level was lower then and that the tiny island these mammals live on now was part of a much larger island back then. Thus, back then they were an interbreeding part of a large population, which still exist, with little survival stress. Thus, when the sea level rose, we know they were isolated - an essential requirement for evolutionary divergence to produce a new species.

There are many experiments showing significant changes. Both natural experiments (For example, the well known change from white to grey of moths in London when that city was burning a lot of coal and black suet fell everywhere. - Birds selectively ate the more easily noticed white ones resting on trees.) and experiments entirely designed by man. (Like the transport of small fish with first eggs being laid at about one year above a water fall where they evolved to delay the first laying of eggs slightly more than a year after about 15 years in the predator free waters above the falls. They laid many more eggs when they were bigger fish and the "early layers" stoill making only small number of eggs were selected out of the gene pool.)"

SUMMARY: Your "it never has been observed is FALSE, even in mammals. It is obviously and demonstrably false when one considers lesser creatures. For example, do you not understand why you need to keep taking an antibiotic for 10 days even if completely free of fever and any other symptom in two days? The anti-biotic is an extreme stress on the organisms that are making you sick. They can run thru a dozen or more generations in a few hours. More than 90% of the first generation born after the anti-biotic in your blood will be killed within an hour of their birth by the anti biotic, but some with slight variations may live a few hours. That variation will be much more common in the next generation, so on average perhaps it will take 2 hours to kill 90% of them etc. for a few hundred generation by day 5. Then you are well as vary few of the organism making you sick still live, but they cannot be easily killed by the anti-biotic so you keep taking it 5 days more to kill them all. If you, feeling well on day 5 throw the remainder of the anti-biotic in the trash there is a good chance you will get sick again, and the new species of organism will not be killed by that same anti- biotic. The wide spread use of anti-biotic in cattle has made several new organisms that cannot be killed by more than three different and commonly used anti-biotics.

If you have ever had an anti-botic, you yourself have demonstrated evolution is real and easily observed.

FINNAL SUMMARY: YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLE WRONG and telling false "facts."
PS: Don't forget to answer my question in the first paragraph.

BTW your "develope fur to stay warmer" only reflects you lack of understanding that evolution proceeds ONLY by chance change, not by purpose.

 

[Baron Max]

And, unfortunately for you, we have observed speciation, adaptation and natural selection.

Since it's been observed once or twice in the present time, does that mean conclusively and without any doubt that it also happened throughout the forming of the planet and the animals?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Direct observation of the creation or evolution of a new species of large, multiple-cellular, animals is not possible as it is a slow process. Typically this takes much long than the period in which mankind has had the ability to write records; ....

So that means that it's still only an unproven theory, right?

... However, we can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals in only 8000 years has occurred at least once.

Just because something happened once, doesn't mean that it's happened continuously all throughout the forming of the planet and the animals. So once again we must conclude that evolution is still only a theory without conclusive proof.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

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. .....
Science is supposed to be a fine tool..... .... It's not a weapon to wield just as the Quaran, Tora, or Bible is not to be used to attack and ensalve. Why repeat the mistakes religion has made? Why breed hate?

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

While creationist continue to propose an inevident six day plan for the universe ...

I would suggest that there are many and varied forms of "creationism". Not all creationist adhere to the "six day plan" for the creation of the universe ..."six days" has been written, but does it mean six days? Or was that only symbolic?

I personally know many "creationists" who believe (at least tentatively) in the theory of evolution. However, that belief does NOT preclude the existence of God, nor does it preclude the devine formation of the universe. Many feel that the creation actually "created" the ideals of evolution.

But I applaud your post for its condemnation of those elitists who feel the need to ridicule and persecute those who don't believe as they believe.

One thing that's certain in human existence, however they came to be .... that humans suck giant donkey dicks! No other animal is so destructive, polluting and murderous.

Baron Max

 

[Clucky]

Since it's been observed once or twice in the present time, does that mean conclusively and without any doubt that it also happened throughout the forming of the planet and the animals?

Baron Max

It has been observed more than once or twice, directly. Direct observations are merely one component in the compendium of evidence that has been amassed over the past century. Each piece of evidence on its own would not conclude anything, it is the relationships and quantity of this evidence which make evolution so convincing. The formation of planets is irrelevant in consideration of the theory, as it is evident planets did form as an environment for evolution to occur, and the dawn of life is known as abiogenesis, evolution does not concern itself with this either (it is only at this point you could start to make a case for God at all, and even then it's a slippery slope.) Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, nothing more, nothing less.

I like you Baron. You ask sound questions, which I respond to with pride, but not aggression. It is this sort of inquisitive nature which I can, will and do applaud. It is only when people, for example creationists, do not ask rational questions or take fundamental points into consideration that I, and others, will resort the an offensive position.

Since the rest of your questions and statements were directed at others, I will let them address them, before doing so myself.

 

[(Q)]

I have a low opinion of Dawkins. He is guilty, in my view, of dogmatic stances on certain matters concerning evolution. He takes the position that something must be so, simply because he'd like it to be so. It is done very subtly, but it is done.

You're free to provide examples of such nonsense, but I doubt you will. Most likely, it will be your own personal unfounded objections.

But when she is she will be welcome to read anything I have, though if she heads for Dawkins I'll nudge her along the alphabet to Dennet.

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

 

[Clucky]

You're free to provide examples of such nonsense, but I doubt you will. Most likely, it will be your own personal unfounded objections.

Ophiolite said that he would provide evidence for his contention in due time.

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

I think he was referring to his critique of religion, rather than the revolutionary work he has done in the field. He also said that he would merely "nudge" them over to Professor Dennet's work. I don't think, from what I've seen of him, Ophiolite would ever contemplate preventing his grandchild from reading what she wishes.

I don't agree with him on his critique of Dawkins, but I see no reason to be so defensive of him. He's a big boy and I think he has constantly demonstrated that he is a fantastic debater.

 

[Billy T]

Since it's been observed once or twice in the present time, does that mean conclusively and without any doubt that it also happened throughout the forming of the planet and the animals? Baron Max

No, although highly improbable and in violation of Oakum’s razor, some doubt is possible IF, with no supporting evidence, one wants to postulate a second process, such as: "God made some creatures" and postulate (again with no supporting evidence) that God was able to foresee exactly which 22 different, complex amino acids molecules that evolution would evolve and use only those 22 out of the 10,000 or so that are possible when constructing "his animals" with these same 22.

If you believe that is what happened, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you cheap.

 

[Billy T]

...if she heads for Dawkins I'll nudge her along the alphabet to Dennet.

I have read Dennet's Consciousness Explained and a few others of his - He, IMHO, is just as egotistical and domagntic as Dawkins. - The very title of that book is an example: Mankind is still a long way from solving what Chambers called the "hard problem."

In fact, I think cognitive science is even on the wrong tract towards the solution with the currently accepted "emergent" ideas about perception, etc. (They just give a name to a process they have not the slightest clue about. -My ideas* on this subject explain parts of this mystery and are much more in agreement with many facts they can not even explain.)
----------------
* See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
for details, and evidence supporting this non-standard POV. It is a long read, about 8 pages if printed and this link is more focused on showing that Genuine Free Will need not be in conflict with physics, but the Real Time Simulation, POV about perception is set forth as part of that argument and several pieces of evidence for it are presented.

On Dennet: I was only stating that he (like me and also Dawkin) is completely convenced that his POV is correct.