Denial of Evolution VI.

[Write4U]

No offense taken here. You are very inquisitive and reasonable. The forum could do with many more like you.

As to the disclosure of PM's in public, that is definitely a breach of forum etiquette and quite probably of forum rules. (Haven't read them in a very long time)

Besides being totally uncouth. And uncool. What can you do though....

Carry on.

What on earth have done but treat Wegs with the utmost respect and hours of research providing her with information about evolution and how it differs from the OT. At no time have I attacked Christianity or religion in general, except to point out that Evolution is an established fact as confirmed by the Catholic Church.

In other forums a mod might have reminded the participants to stay on Topic. I took the liberty to do that in a general way and in public and there was no reason to respond with a PM for a perceived insult, then deprive me of the right to defend my motives, which are pure and non judgemental of anyone's beliefs except those of Evolution Deniers.

If anyone wants to PM me, fine, clean up your inbox so that I can respond in private. Or else don't PM me and tell me I am not their friend any longer for trying to direct back to the Forum Topic.

This is too bizarre. The breach of etiquette occurred by going off-topic, not my reminder of that fact.

 

[Robittybob1]

..... As to the disclosure of PM's in public, that is definitely a breach of forum etiquette and quite probably of forum rules. (Haven't read them in a very long time)

Besides being totally uncouth. And uncool. What can you do though....

Carry on.

If you send a PM and it can't get through because the mailbox you were intending to send it, is full, and you put it in the thread as a post instead, I doubt if that is breaking any rule. For how can you tell if any post was intended as a PM to you or not.

What was low and uncouth is receiving a PM and posting what was delivered to you in confidence.

 

[Aqueous Id]

a general observation that we had strayed from the Topic of Denial of Evolution, which has nothing to do with you being a Christian and believing in a Creator.

I would say the last part of that is a fair appraisal insofar as wegs has shown that she is not in denial of evolution, while maintaining a refined outlook on her religion. But it's not really off topic is it? Denial of evolution almost always entails religion. Even now another poster is being asked to explain how creationist arguments against science can get any traction if the poster disavows the religion which forms the basis of the arguments.

If anything wegs is demonstrating a cool and frank level of dialogue about as far from flaming as it gets. That's worth its weight in gold as compared to the cranks, crackpots and trolls who sometimes dog these threads. Once we got booted out of the Biology forum, I think it opened it up to the more general question of denial. wegs has brought us an innovation, breaking the rhythm we were in, mostly tit-for-tat first with leopold, and then some interest from jan ardena. The innovation is that wegs is emulating a lot of the principles jan ardena attribute to religious folks, but wegs is giving it to us in real time, in the 1st person, frankly and sanely, without any resistance to the underlying themes that leopold and jan are arguing against. Seems like a worthwhile digression - plus she's a newcomer (wow a lot of posts already I see) and engaging folks of all stripes in a bright and clear voice that keeps us on our toes just to keep up. It's all good I think.

But don't let any of what I just said deter you from any forays you might want to make back into biology. Somewhere I left off talking about the commonality of human and yeast DNA, which I think serves as a good rebound to the dialogue that was sagging regarding macroevolution. Yeast is a fairly innocuous relative to have, not seeming nearly as terrible as the thought of coming from worms--and I forget what jan calls the primordial stew - something fairly cynical. The average person wouldn't guess that yeast has a close affinity with human DNA.

So there's a possible science topic for you. It speaks to the phasing out of fossil evidence, to some degree, as a medium of physical evidence for this "macroevolution" that worries the fundies so much. And it speaks to the importance of the genome project, the huge amount of data those folks have already collected, the open systems they're posting it on (no secret cabal after all) and the corroborating effect of these jillions of puzzle pieces that snap together like individually crafted Legos. Nothing like this compares in science except perhaps the discovery of the Periodic Table and the years that passed while it fleshed itself out. Denialists are tacitly refusing the work of the Genome Project ostensibly because it is so hard to argue against-except maybe for the usual runarounds like the claims of corruption and secret cabals. But once someone tells you your DNA is similar to a plant or fungus, and can reach for the evidence, the whole supposed crisis over macroevolution just flickers out. I think there is virtually no interest from the fundies over this question, they just want to harp on humans vs. apes. But this is where the focus should be if they want to dig into the most ancient of common ancestors. Here's something to whet everyone's appetites, just a morsel really:

Researchers from Princeton University found in a study of 1,000 generations of adaptation in 40 yeast populations that about five to seven specific mutations, rather than just a one, are needed for an organism to succeed. The knowledge of how mutations drive evolution can inform our understanding of how tumors resist chemotherapeutics and how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. The study was published July 21 in the journal Nature.​

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S37/45/09I59/index.xml?section=topstories

It just posted today. It goes on to talk about genetic mutation "cohorts" that "hitchhike" on top of the mutation that's driving the selection. Pretty cool stuff, not at all surprising, but just amazing. And we note that they are not at all trying to prove to fundies what's going on, just going about their business as usual.

 

[wegs]

What on earth have done but treat Wegs with the utmost respect and hours of research providing her with information about evolution and how it differs from the OT. At no time have I attacked Christianity or religion in general, except to point out that Evolution is an established fact as confirmed by the Catholic Church.

In other forums a mod might have reminded the participants to stay on Topic. I took the liberty to do that in a general way and in public and there was no reason to respond with a PM for a perceived insult, then deprive me of the right to defend my motives, which are pure and non judgemental of anyone's beliefs except those of Evolution Deniers.

If anyone wants to PM me, fine, clean up your inbox so that I can respond in private. Or else don't PM me and tell me I am not their friend any longer for trying to direct back to the Forum Topic.

This is too bizarre. The breach of etiquette occurred by going off-topic, not my reminder of that fact.

I didn't know my inbox was full. I received an email that it was full, then cleaned it up. It was not that long, before I did so...then, noticed the pm here.
I told you I wasn't offended by your views, or anything.
And I didn't think you were saying anything about my faith.

When in doubt, don't post something someone sends to you in private.
No matter if you thought I was wrong or not. When in doubt, be thoughtful of the other person.

And finally, I never disagreed with evolution. I believe both schools of thought, belief in a Creator and belief in the theory of evolution can coexist, so to speak.
I've said that from the get go.
That in no way went off topic. I thought that was the purpose of the thread.

I'll graciously bow out of this thread, now.
It was interesting, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to help me understand their views.
Hopefully, you got to know another side, too.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[leopold]

Denial of evolution almost always entails religion.

questioning evolution IS NOT denial aqueous.
denial in this regard would be flat out stating "god did it. period".
THAT'S denial.
stating"i don't believe such and such" or "i don't see how . . ." isn't even close to denial.
posting evidence which goes against evolution also isn't denial.
i've noticed your bias in this regard.
you are by no means the worst offender, probably the mildest here.
i post links to the placebo effect and i'm grilled like a pig about being "creationist".
ridiculous.

 

[leopold]

aqueous.
you said that single celled lifeforms behave as if they are aware of their surroundings.
in your opinion what causes this "awareness"?

 

[Write4U]

I would say the last part of that is a fair appraisal insofar as wegs has shown that she is not in denial of evolution, while maintaining a refined outlook on her religion. But it's not really off topic is it? Denial of evolution almost always entails religion. Even now another poster is being asked to explain how creationist arguments against science can get any traction if the poster disavows the religion which forms the basis of the arguments.

If anything wegs is demonstrating a cool and frank level of dialogue about as far from flaming as it gets. That's worth its weight in gold as compared to the cranks, crackpots and trolls who sometimes dog these threads. Once we got booted out of the Biology forum, I think it opened it up to the more general question of denial. wegs has brought us an innovation, breaking the rhythm we were in, mostly tit-for-tat first with leopold, and then some interest from jan ardena. The innovation is that wegs is emulating a lot of the principles jan ardena attribute to religious folks, but wegs is giving it to us in real time, in the 1st person, frankly and sanely, without any resistance to the underlying themes that leopold and jan are arguing against. Seems like a worthwhile digression - plus she's a newcomer (wow a lot of posts already I see) and engaging folks of all stripes in a bright and clear voice that keeps us on our toes just to keep up. It's all good I think.

I could not agree more and I thought I was having a very productive exchange on what seemed unfamiliar to her. That was the very reason why I spent a lot of hours in trying to provide information on what seemed pertinent from a scientific viewpoint, actively trying to avoid bringing religion to the table of a secular scientific inquiry. This was poor judgement and egocentric on my part. It was not my thread and I had no right and try to control any of the conversation. I should have stepped back. I apologize to all.

But don't let any of what I just said deter you from any forays you might want to make back into biology. Somewhere I left off talking about the commonality of human and yeast DNA, which I think serves as a good rebound to the dialogue that was sagging regarding macroevolution. Yeast is a fairly innocuous relative to have, not seeming nearly as terrible as the thought of coming from worms--and I forget what jan calls the primordial stew - something fairly cynical. The average person wouldn't guess that yeast has a close affinity with human DNA.

So there's a possible science topic for you. It speaks to the phasing out of fossil evidence, to some degree, as a medium of physical evidence for this "macroevolution" that worries the fundies so much. And it speaks to the importance of the genome project, the huge amount of data those folks have already collected, the open systems they're posting it on (no secret cabal after all) and the corroborating effect of these jillions of puzzle pieces that snap together like individually crafted Legos. Nothing like this compares in science except perhaps the discovery of the Periodic Table and the years that passed while it fleshed itself out. Denialists are tacitly refusing the work of the Genome Project ostensibly because it is so hard to argue against-except maybe for the usual runarounds like the claims of corruption and secret cabals. But once someone tells you your DNA is similar to a plant or fungus, and can reach for the evidence, the whole supposed crisis over macroevolution just flickers out. I think there is virtually no interest from the fundies over this question, they just want to harp on humans vs. apes. But this is where the focus should be if they want to dig into the most ancient of common ancestors. Here's something to whet everyone's appetites, just a morsel really:

Researchers from Princeton University found in a study of 1,000 generations of adaptation in 40 yeast populations that about five to seven specific mutations, rather than just a one, are needed for an organism to succeed. The knowledge of how mutations drive evolution can inform our understanding of how tumors resist chemotherapeutics and how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. The study was published July 21 in the journal Nature.​

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S37/45/09I59/index.xml?section=topstories

It just posted today. It goes on to talk about genetic mutation "cohorts" that "hitchhike" on top of the mutation that's driving the selection. Pretty cool stuff, not at all surprising, but just amazing. And we note that they are not at all trying to prove to fundies what's going on, just going about their business as usual.

Thank you for the link.

 

[wegs]

I'm sorry too, write4u for saying that to you in pm.
I hope we can move on, now.



Who knew the denial of evolution could be so...riveting?

 

[Write4U]

I didn't know my inbox was full. I received an email that it was full, then cleaned it up. It was not that long, before I did so...then, noticed the pm here.
I told you I wasn't offended by your views, or anything.
And I didn't think you were saying anything about my faith.

When in doubt, don't post something someone sends to you in private.
No matter if you thought I was wrong or not. When in doubt, be thoughtful of the other person.

And finally, I never disagreed with evolution. I believe both schools of thought, belief in a Creator and belief in the theory of evolution can coexist, so to speak.
I've said that from the get go.
That in no way went off topic. I thought that was the purpose of the thread.

I'll graciously bow out of this thread, now.
It was interesting, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to help me understand their views.
Hopefully, you got to know another side, too.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

Wegs, if I have offended you in any way, I apologize most respectfully. I think you are a wonderful person.

 

[wegs]

Wegs, if I have offended you in any way, I apologize most respectfully. I think you are a wonderful person.

((hugs)) i think you are pretty great, too.

if i didn't, i wouldn't have been offended.

thank you.

 

[Aqueous Id]

questioning evolution IS NOT denial aqueous.

That's why I said "Denial of evolution almost always entails religion."

denial in this regard would be flat out stating "god did it. period".
THAT'S denial.

Almost always. I'm leaving room for a few possible exceptions.

stating"i don't believe such and such" or "i don't see how . . ." isn't even close to denial.

I'm pretty sure I never categorized you as being in denial.

posting evidence which goes against evolution also isn't denial.

There is no evidence against evolution. Bald claims maybe. That makes the next part, where I tell you I'm not categorizing you as being in denial, more problematic.

i've noticed your bias in this regard.

A bias against denial? Isn't that called 'being realistic'?

you are by no means the worst offender, probably the mildest here.

As far as a bias against denial? I have no problem with that label.

I post links to the placebo effect and i'm grilled like a pig about being "creationist".
ridiculous.

I took it as an opportunity to discuss the way the brain jointly operates through synapse and through chemical messaging.It happens to be very relevant to evolution and our genetic link to very primitive animals - the ones who first developed such characteristics.

But are you sure you're not in denial? Let's face it, if you were - if any of us are - the first thing we'll do is deny that. Maybe in your case it would help to first agree to a definition. I think this thread opened with that goal in mind but maybe never got there.

I would propose this definition:

Denial is one of many defense mechanisms. It entails ignoring or refusing to believe an unpleasant reality. ​

http://ask.healthline.com/galecontent/denial

I picked this definition because it's the one I'm usually meaning. That leaves it to ask if you find evolution to be unpleasant. You might also consider whether you consider science unpleasant. For sake of argument, let's say you do. Now if you were to reject the reality of evolution based on its being unpleasant, that would pretty well put you over the mark. Maybe that's not the case. But as soon as you say "it's not real" you cross that line (anyone does) and we come back to the question why you find it so unpleasant that you don't wish to "admit" the reality of it.

 

[Rav]

^ Yet another sockpuppet trolling vacuously

EDIT: Yeah, that's right Aqueous, I'm talking to you!

(Actually, the post I was pointing at has now been removed, thanks to our on-the-ball mods.)

 

[leopold]

I took it as an opportunity to discuss the way the brain jointly operates through synapse and through chemical messaging.It happens to be very relevant to evolution and our genetic link to very primitive animals - the ones who first developed such characteristics.

now tell me, how do "primitive animals" develop a faith based healing system such as the placebo effect?
edit
in my opinion the above question is unfair and i retract it.
/edit
how do you even know primitive animals HAD such a trait?

But are you sure you're not in denial?

honestly?
i'm in frikken limbo here.
i don't believe in an unknown super intelligence without any substance.
on the other hand i've seen NOTHING that supports "things become alive and develop a consciousness".
in my opinion both of the above concepts are ridiculous.

You might also consider whether you consider science unpleasant.

no, why should i?
personally i like for my stuff to make reasonable sense to a reasonable person.

 

[James R]

I've just caught up with this thread (i.e. read the last 1000 posts or so).

At this point I'd just like to congratulate the explainers of evolution on the great work you've done here. Every supposed objection to evolution put forward by our resident creationists has been thoroughly debunked, usually with many references. Moreover, the creationists have been left looking like fools for maintaining their weak position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This thread is an excellent and instructive discussion which every creationist ought to read. Not that many of them will change their minds. It's very hard to argue somebody out of something they weren't argued into in the first place, and creationism can be nothing other than a position of faith alone, baring your teeth into the gale-force wind of the evidence against that position.

I'd also like to congratulate all the "evolutionists" (a clumsy term, I know) for remaining calm and patient throughout.

Compare what our creationists have offered here in terms of actual evidence, in the form of cut-and-pastes or links, to what the evolutionists have offered. It is most instructive and illuminating. The creationists, by and large, have relied on their own opinions, cribbed uncritically from answersingenesis, their local pastors and like sources. They have lots of empty claims, but no actual science. In contrast, the evolutionists have provided direct and complete answers to all of the creationist rubbish, including some quite devastating point-by-point rebuttals of arguments made, complete with many references. Even the articles relied on by the creationists have been effectively pulled apart, either to show that they say the opposite of what the creationists claim, or else to show that they are from worthless sources.

At the risk of leaving significant posters out, which I am sure to do, I'd like to congratulate the following posters in particular (and in no special order):

AqueousId, Rav, rpenner, Trippy.

Keep up the good work!

 

[billvon]

questioning evolution IS NOT denial aqueous.
denial in this regard would be flat out stating "god did it. period".
THAT'S denial.

No, that's promotion of a theory (like creationism.) Denial is just that - denial of various aspects of evolution without suggesting any alternatives. It is seen often in climate science, history, evolutionary science etc. It uses the wedge method of "sowing doubt" about a concept so that other political objectives can be achieved.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Your focus on this single presentation is essentially just another example of your efforts to frame the issue of acceptance or denial in terms of a minimal amount of effort.

This presentation is typical.
The points I wish to make regarding this idea of ''denial of evolution'' is all contained within it. It could have been any presentation.

I haven't suggested that Jerry's talk is adequate by itself. In fact I've said the opposite. His book is a hell of a lot more comprehensive, and even that would only be a start.

I prefer to hear what he has to say.

Oh goodie. We might actually have something interesting to discuss here. Start by explaining exactly what you mean, and we'll go from there.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41652...ichard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/

That might mean something if you'd actually put any real effort into looking, but it's clear that you haven't, so it doesn't.

So you say, but I say that I do put real effort into looking, so we may as well give up on that, and agree to disagree, as it will only ever be a sidetrack issue.

Examples please.

Maybe another time/thread, but for now it's not important.

It has comical value, and it's even occasionally somewhat therapeutic. Everyone does it sometimes, especially when contentious issues are in the air.

You're right, comedy plays a big roll in atheist presentations and debates. A last ditch effort to win the gullibles over perhaps?
But you're wrong, most people don't have to rely on comedy to explain a ''truth'' (especially the type that targets groups you don't agree with), especially when it comes to science or religion.

This is not the correct way to approach the topic. Try something like this instead: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

If there's one thing you should take away from reading this short article, it is what the title touches on: the power of independent evidence. This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier. When so many different disciplines are painting the same picture, it starts to become intellectually perverse to remain in denial. And this is true of evolution in general. It really is.

Thanks for the link (even though I have read it already).

Gringerich said that when he was making a model from the fragments of skull found (rhodocetus i think), he felt like giving this new found creature flippers and a tail fluke despite the lack of fossils.

How many ususpecting people did he fool there?
And how do we know if there aren't other imaginary, atheistic claims masquerueding as ''truth'' out there?
Why did he do it?

Errr, I was being pretty damned clear Jan. I am saying that religious fundamentalism entails the a priori rejection of anything that is in opposition to it. And for crying out loud, this is yet another thing I have explained to you before, and another instance of you pretending that I haven't. But for the benefit of our readers, we can evidence it thusly:

Any kind of ''fundamentalism'' entails that kind of rejection. But it is totally possible to be a fundamentalist religious person and do science because neither one, when performed correctly encroaches on the other. Your understanding of this is based on specif ideaologies, not ''religion'' as a concept.

"As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. He will accepts the facts of science (not the just so stories), and will say them as they are, but he will remain faithful to God's word. He is not denying anything, or trying to turn the facts around to suit himself.

They are all religious fundamentalists who are compelled by that fundamentalism to frame everything within the boundaries of what scripture teaches. In other words, they simply can not even approach the topic of evolution without a degree of bias that every other scientist would find shocking.

You clearly haven't understood what Kurt Wise was saying, which is why it sounded to you like he would frame everything within the bounderies of what scripture teaches. I'm afraid you may well be projecting a character trait from within your own camp.

How do you explain this, in light of current understanding of whale evolution?

It's kind of telling how evolutionists work when you get comments like this at the dig site......

"And it turns out we have a nice part of a probably this ancient fossil whale called a bassilosaurus," said Dr. Katy Smith of Georgia Southern University

....before it is completely unearthed.

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

^ Yet another sockpuppet trolling vacuously

EDIT: Yeah, that's right Aqueous, I'm talking to you!

(Actually, the post I was pointing at has now been removed, thanks to our on-the-ball mods.)

Huh?

 

[wegs]

Aqueous;

Think another poster who has been banned posted a not so nice comment about you/to you, yesterday. Thus, the "sock puppet" comment.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueous;

Think another poster who has been banned posted a not so nice comment about you/to you, yesterday. Thus, the "sock puppet" comment.

Thanks for the explanation. Sure wouldn't want to get on Rav's bad side. :spank:

 

[Rav]

Rav,

Perhaps you could do us the courtesy of replying in a timely manner. It keeps the thread more coherent.

This presentation is typical.

Typical of what? Typical of a mere overview? I agree.

I prefer to hear what he has to say.

Translation: I prefer to be lazy.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41652...ichard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/

You probably shouldn't have posted that, Jan, because you're not going to be able to legitimately avoid discussing some details now.

Sternberg's primary argument is not that it was impossible for the necessary adaptations to occur, only that it was highly unlikely that they could have occurred in such a short time frame. He was basing that conclusion on mathematical models. But where are they? I can't find them, and I can't find any discussion about them. You're going to need to find them, and point us to them, if you're hoping that this argument is going to have any weight.

Of course it also bears mentioning, just so we can be aware of any heavy underlying bias that might have gone into those mysterious mathematical models, that Sternberg is a creationist. And he lies about it (among other things).

Sure, we can probably overlook that if his premises are sound. But that's the pertinent question that we would need to investigate.

So you say, but I say that I do put real effort into looking, so we may as well give up on that and agree to disagree, as it will only ever be a sidetrack issue.

No, it's actually a critical issue, and one that has been ongoing for years.

Maybe another time/thread, but for now it's not important.

Actually it's quite important. You're trying to get away with making accusations without putting the effort into examining the details of even a single case study. Sorry, but that's not good enough.

But you're wrong, most people don't have to rely on comedy

I never said anyone had to rely on comedy, so no, sorry, I'm not actually wrong.

Thanks for the link (even though I have read it already).

Gringerich said that when he was making a model from the fragments of skull found (rhodocetus i think), he felt like giving this new found creature flippers and a tail fluke despite the lack of fossils. How many ususpecting people did he fool there? And how do we know if there aren't imaginary claims masquerueding as ''truth'' out there?

"Elsewhere along the spine, the four large sacral vertebrae were unfused. This gave the spine more flexibility and allowed a more powerful thrust while swimming. It is also likely that Rodhocetus had a tail fluke, although such a feature is not preserved in the known fossils: it possessed features - shortened cervical vertebrae, heavy and robust proximal tail vertebrae, and large dorsal spines on the lumbar vertebrae for large tail and other axial muscle attachments - that are associated in modern whales with the development and use of tail flukes. All in all, Rodhocetus must have been a very good tail-swimmer, and it is the earliest fossil whale committed to this manner of swimming."*

Bit of an inaccurate characterization there Jan. Besides, this is a perfectly normal thing to do when you're trying to piece together fossils and figure out what they are. It's only a potential problem (in terms of potential to see what isn't really there) when you have nothing else to go by, which isn't the case here.

But it is totally possible to be a fundamentalist religious person and do science because neither one, when performed correctly encroaches on the other.

Biblical fundamentalism, when performed "correctly" (as in, according to the biblical fundamentalists own definition of it) demands a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story and all other related events. To paraphrase Kurt Wise, there they must stand.

So I'm sorry, but no. I'm afraid you're simply in denial about the reality of religious fundamentalism.

Your understanding of this is based on specif ideaologies, not ''religion'' as a concept.

Of course it's based on specific ideologies you idiot! Fundamentalist biblical creationism is a specific ideology! And it's the primary ideology that sits behind the ID movement! FFS, you really are off with the fairies.

You clearly haven't understood what Kurt Wise was saying, which is why it sounded to you like he would frame everything within the bounderies of what scripture teaches. I'm afraid you may well be projecting a character trait from within your own camp.

Utter nonsense. Kurt Wise is simply an honest creationist. As such, I have more respect for him than I do for you. All people like you do is flail around as part of some nebulous blob of bullshit, half-truths, cop-outs, evasions and denials.

How do you explain this, in light of current understanding of whale evolution?

Can you explain the nature of the problem please? I don't get your point.

It's kind of telling how evolutionists work when you get comments like this at the dig site......

"And it turns out we have a nice part of a probably this ancient fossil whale called a bassilosaurus," said Dr. Katy Smith of Georgia Southern University

....before it is completely unearthed.

Considering the use of the word "probably", can you explain the nature of this problem too please? I don't get your point.