Evolution, not a fact??????

[Jan Ardena]

KennyJC,

If you have read what credible 'facts' there are and still consider it all 'nonsense', then what is your theory on the existence of life?

There are no scientific facts that support macro-evolution, it is a matter of conditional belief, intermingled with established facts.

True much of macro evolution relies on common sense, but there is overwhelming evidence which backs up that common sense.

Macro evolution relies purely on conditional belief, based on complete denial of God, and is purely imaginative. When there is some evidence, then I will think differently.

You haven't been able to say why it is nonsense, you have just said it is that. Why?

It is banded about as a fact, this makes it a nonsense.

Doubtful... I'm sure you'd stick to Genesis.

Your sure, and you don't even know me. What value does your belief system hold, when you can make such sweeping statements as this?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

Macro evolution relies purely on conditional belief, based on complete denial of God, and is purely imaginative. .

Utter and complete crap. You obnoxious specimen of partially evolved humanity. Denial of God has bugger all to do with macro-evolution. I have studied evolution. I have observed macro-evolution, as you choose to call it in the fossil record.
At that time I was a fully paid up, card carrying Christian. Belief in God was incidental to the evidence. You are talking pure bollocks. Because you are so short sighted you can't recognise a fact when it hits you between the eyes Do not impose that intrinsic self failure on the rest of us.
There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution except the duration.
Get a brain, learn how to use. I am fed up with you ignorant bastards corrupting religion and science simultaneously. Shit or get off the pot. Learn to think or remove yourself from the gene pool. Excuse me while I vomit.

The rest of you have a nice day.

 

[davewhite04]

have you ever read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html ?
no need to read the whole thing, just each of the evidences. You probably won't understand a word, but at least you can't say there isn't enough evidence.

Ok. Instead of discussing the whole 29 "evidences" for macro evolution, I thought it would be more manageable to concentrate on one of the sites most celebrated examples of transitional fossils (in their words). Example 3 : Human - Apes. I would have posted their picture for convienience but I don't want to get done for plagiarism.

My first question, in your view is that list of skulls from A-N in chronological order?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ophiolite,

You obnoxious specimen of partially evolved humanity.

Very good Ophiolite, your not just a pompus twat, you do have some balls.

Denial of God has bugger all to do with macro-evolution.

Without macro-evolution modern-atheism has no teeth.

I have studied evolution. I have observed macro-evolution, as you choose to call it in the fossil record.

So it is truth, the end of all knowledge regarding diversity of species. We need not look any further, all we have to do is do what you did, observe it.
And how exactly is this possible?

At that time I was a fully paid up, card carrying Christian. Belief in God was incidental to the evidence.

What is up with you people and Christianity? This is the RELIGION forum, not the CHRISTIANITY forum.
The question is do you believe in God now?

You are talking pure bollocks. Because you are so short sighted you can't recognise a fact when it hits you between the eyes Do not impose that intrinsic self failure on the rest of us.

What facts have you presented?
All you ever seem to do is talk.

There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution except the duration.

Yes there is. One is a fact and can easily be observed, the other is an infered concept which cannot be observed (unless you can provide the goods).

Get a brain, learn how to use.

Because I do not agree with you, I am sub-human?
This is very familiar territory.

I am fed up with you ignorant bastards corrupting religion and science simultaneously.

Corrupting?
What a strange thing to say.

Learn to think or remove yourself from the gene pool. Excuse me while I vomit.

So much violence from one so knowledgable.

Jan .

 

[Ophiolite]

Very good Ophiolite, your not just a pompus twat, you do have some balls.

Pompous. If you are going to praise me, learn to spell properly.

Without macro-evolution modern-atheism has no teeth.

I don't give a flying Aardvark about moderne atheism, ancient athiesm, post-modern athiesm, stuck in the mud athiesm, athiesm with fries on the side. Athiesm has fuck all to do with evolution, whether it is micro, macro or any other variety. Irrelevant. No significance. Evolution and religion - all kinds of religion are not incompatible.

We need not look any further, all we have to do is do what you did, observe it.
And how exactly is this possible?

Open your fucking eyes.

What is up with you people and Christianity? This is the RELIGION forum, not the CHRISTIANITY forum.
The question is do you believe in God now?

Strawman par excellence.Your statement was that macro-evolution depends on the denial of God. I came to my understanding of evolution while a full believer in God. It happens that it was the Christian God so that was the one I referred to. You are either dumb or devious. I dislike both attributes. You really should consider removing yourself from the gene pool. [Though if you are as attractive in the flesh as you are on-line I doubt there's much chance of you procreating anyway]
For the record now I am a devout agnostic.

What facts have you presented?
All you ever seem to do is talk.

Not the facts I have presented. The facts that are there in tens of thousands of research articles in the field of biology, genetics, paleaontology and the like.

All you ever seem to do is talk.

All you never seem to do is listen.

Because I do not agree with you, I am sub-human?

At last. Something we can agree on.

So much violence from one so knowledgable.

Violence. You really are ignorant, aren't you? Violence involves harm. Have I harmed you in anyway? I doubt it, for you consider my views distorted; my facts falsified; my theories ill-founded. Nothing I can say could possibly harm or alter your opinion in anyway. You are all too solid in your comfortable den of profanity. Sleep well.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution except the duration.

Yes there is. One is a fact and can easily be observed, the other is an infered concept which cannot be observed (unless you can provide the goods).

That was a very foolish statement, Jan. Irrespective of your theology, you need to know that your understanding of science is both naive and flawed. Very often in science what is being observed and tested is predicted consequences. It is as legitimate to use such things as stratigraphic distribution to validate evolution as it is to use the orbit-altering effects of frame-dragging to validate general relativity.

We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?

Because it is the episodic unintended consequence of changes in allele frequency filtered by changes in ecology stretching over millennia.

This is storytelling, and furthermore you have absolutely no way of proving this is what happens.

Science does, indeed, supply us with a fascinating and oft times beautiful narrative, particularly when compared by that offered by its detractors. As for the rest, I have absolutely no way of 'proving' any number of things. Nevertheless, evolution remains the one remarkable paradigm which best explains the ever accumulating body of facts while allowing for testable predictions, rendering the intellectual poverty of your alternative apparent throughout the scientific community.

In your view, Jan, what is the mechanism that constrains descent with modification to "micro-evolution"?

All you need to know from me, for now, is that evolution takes place because we can observe it. And macro-evolution does not take place because we cannot observe it.

You misunderstand, Jan - I need to know nothing from you. I simply asked you a question. Cowardly avoidance of the question is clearly one of your options and, in fact, probably your best one.

IBE?

Sorry - Inference to the Best Explanation.

 

[GeoffP]

Micro evolution I believe is a fact, but evolution as a whole is not. Because evidence for micro evolution is unquestionable the rest of the evolution theory (like macro evolution) somehow becomes more solid hmm...

I believe God created the universe and micro evolution is just part of the design.

But how is that position debatable? It's unverifiable, unfalsifiable.

Moreover, if microevolution can and does exist, how can it not be a rational explanation for biodiversity? You must admit, we don't see random assemblages of every imaginable type of life-form, but rather fairly tight groupings of related extants (and those related to earlier types).

Moreover, why need there be no macroevolution for God's great plan? How would it even be detectable? In an unrelated question, surely you're not refuting macroevolution, given the fossil record?

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Jan,

I fail to comprehend your rejection of macroevol. How exactly is it not verifiable? Surely you can see the often excellent evolutionary series illustrated in Equus, Ichthyostega (undoubtedly my favourite organism: they look so cool! Amphibio-fish, baby, yeah), hell, even ceratopsians. These series were developed from only the most passing surveys of ancient life forms - perhaps less than 1% of all species.

Our successes to-date with such limited material do not bode well for the argument against macro with more material later on.

I appreciate that you don't like the idea and that you're a dedicated theist - I find it truly commendable. But seriously: you don't (do <i>not</i>) have to reject macroevol to be a good Christian or theist of any kind whatever. The areas of theology and evolution (and I hate to cite Gould, that big-headed git) are muturally incompatible magisteria.

Geoff

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

But seriously: you don't (do <i>not</i>) have to reject macroevol to be a good Christian or theist of any kind whatever.

That seems to me an untenable position. Certainly a Biblical literalist would want their birds created well before "every thing that creepeth upon the earth".

 

[GeoffP]

Now I forget: is that the schedule per se?

I would argue that Genesis isn't teeeeeribly reliable in any event. Two animals of every kind, indeed. Basically, any kind of Christian should be able to interpret the whole Genesis thing as a story or an allegory rather than a set rule, I say.

That would certainly not prevent one from being a good Christian. Christians, I might add, are a fairly diverse group in any event. But...it might conflict with literalism, I admit. But how literal the literalist? Two animals of every kind, indeed.

Geoff

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Now I forget: is that the schedule per se?

I would argue that Genesis isn't teeeeeribly reliable in any event. Two animals of every kind, indeed. Basically, any kind of Christian should be able to interpret the whole Genesis thing as a story or an allegory rather than a set rule, I say.

That would certainly not prevent one from being a good Christian.

But you went beyond "being a good Christian" to being "a good Christian or theist of any kind whatever". Clearly the KJV-only YEC crowd need not apply.

Furthermore, it seems to me the Christian can embrace evolution only by (a) constructing some teleological bastardization which has God going out of its way to construct a system that mimics what one would expect were there no God at all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ConsequentAtheist,

That was a very foolish statement, Jan. Irrespective of your theology, you need to know that your understanding of science is both naive and flawed. Very often in science what is being observed and tested is predicted consequences.

I don't think that statement was foolish at all, macro evolution cannot be observerd or tested, it is completely unfalsifiable, therefore it cannot be a scientific fact.

It is as legitimate to use such things as stratigraphic distribution to validate evolution as it is to use the orbit-altering effects of frame-dragging to validate general relativity.

Those same validations can be argued for creationism also. It all depends on who shouts the loundest, and who has the most influence. The fact of the matter is neither macro-evolution or creationism can be observered under scientific conditions. If either could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Nevertheless, evolution remains the one remarkable paradigm which best explains the ever accumulating body of facts while allowing for testable predictions, rendering the intellectual poverty of your alternative apparent throughout the scientific community.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

Cowardly avoidance of the question is clearly one of your options and, in fact, probably your best one.

I'm not avoiding your question, I am just reluctant to be dragged into that kind of discussion at this moment, plus, my views on micro-evolution, are irrelivant at present.

Jan.

 

[leopold]

concerning this subject and common sense and logic:
if someone showed you a picture of the cia shooting jfk would that prove the cia shot the president?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

That was a very foolish statement, Jan. Irrespective of your theology, you need to know that your understanding of science is both naive and flawed. Very often in science what is being observed and tested is predicted consequences.

I don't think that statement was foolish at all, macro evolution cannot be observerd or tested, it is completely unfalsifiable, therefore it cannot be a scientific fact.

I realize that you do not think so, Jan, but it was (and is) foolish nonetheless. Do you acknowledge that, as I noted above, "very often in science what is being observed and tested is predicted consequences"?

It is as legitimate to use such things as stratigraphic distribution to validate evolution as it is to use the orbit-altering effects of frame-dragging to validate general relativity.

Those same validations can be argued for creationism also. It all depends on who shouts the loundest, and who has the most influence.

Excellent! Please suggest what ID/Creationism would predict in terms of stratographic distribution and why. Please suggest what ID/Creationism would predict in terms of genomic research and why.

Nevertheless, evolution remains the one remarkable paradigm which best explains the ever accumulating body of facts while allowing for testable predictions, rendering the intellectual poverty of your alternative apparent throughout the scientific community.

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

It is also the pervasive consensus of the scientific community.

Cowardly avoidance of the question is clearly one of your options and, in fact, probably your best one.

I'm not avoiding your question, I am just reluctant to be dragged into that kind of discussion at this moment, plus, my views on micro-evolution, are irrelivant at present.

You are, in fact, avoiding the question, Jan. Why did you say otherwiise?

I can certainly understand your reluctance. Jan, but you're seriously wrong in assuming that the question is irrelevant. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time resulting in descent with modification and, eventually, speciation. You apparently acknowledge short-term changes while denying long term, cumulative changes. If you choose to make such a preposterous claim, it seems incumbant upon you to explain the mechanism that constrains evolutionary change. Now, please respond to the question so we can move forward.

 

[GeoffP]

But you went beyond "being a good Christian" to being "a good Christian or theist of any kind whatever". Clearly the KJV-only YEC crowd need not apply.

Furthermore, it seems to me the Christian can embrace evolution only by (a) constructing some teleological bastardization which has God going out of its way to construct a system that mimics what one would expect were there no God at all.

All right, I admit that indeed, fundamentalist Christians would be objectors (the only ones, mind) to such a premise. Point taken. My reading, however, is that a literalist interpretation is incorrect - and that, moreover, there is no reason for so doing.

This applies to the second comment. Why, necessarily, does the acceptance of evolution (micro- and macro-) require any "teleological bastardization" whatever? Would this God really be "going out of his way" in the construction of such a system? This God is theoretically omnipotent. How would the expenditure of (literally) any level of effort constitute "going out of his way"? One would presume that the solar system, the universe and all of known reality, non-reality and conceptual reality would be enough of an involvement that worrying about the molecular mechanics would be fairly trivial (absolutely trivial for an absolute being).

Moreover, can we make the assumption that this Being or what have you would create a universe removed from the realm of causality? This is - to my understanding - the nature of the basis of some of islamic science (Shi'a or Wahhabi, possibly): that Allah exists at every level and, rather than wood burning because of rapid oxidation, that Allah changes each and every little particle of wood into cinder as the fire consumes the wood. This is escape from causality.

To imply that this "God [is] going out of its way to construct a system that mimics what one would expect were there no God at all" implies to me a similar disjunct with causality - that the Christian hypothesis must inevitably be constructed around the premise that God is, presumably in this all-Godness, responsible for the arrangement and orderly or disorderly reaction of every particle in the observed system. Not, admittedly, a challenge for an infinitely powerful and observant being, but it drives the expectation of entropy to zero, which is, given our observations to-date, bollocks. That is, zero entropy does not (to my knowledge; go thee hence and Google no more) exist, or should not. Randomization is a viable entity, or at least so assumed to be, given our abilities of observation.

So is the above assumption actually integral to the Christian hypothesis? There is precedence for nearly such an extreme interpretation of Fate or Destiny - but this is wrong, given the core Christian hypothesis, isn't it? That we rise or fall depending on our own actions, that is. I'm sure that there were a great many preachers talking about the "Great Plan" - but was their interpretation correct, or were they merely trying to fill a sociological gap about early class systems? (I.e., placating the masses with talk of a "Great Plan" that gave purpose to suffering, etc.) Ultimately, it doesn't seem to me that nearly this level of predestination is required for the Christian synthesis, and, frankly, that it is expressly counter to their hypothesis (free will resulting in Judgement).

So, in short, it doesn't seem right to me that we as evolutionists etc postulate that God "must have created a system that mimics the no-God state", since, after all, we're talking about events in objective, real space-time. What system is better than this one, anyway?

Or - in even shorter - it's a real world, after all.

Irrational mar-i-ji-hu-a-na leaf: :m:

Geoff

PS: I don't deny that this would effectively kill the debate, but hey: What, me worry?

 

[davewhite04]

But how is that position debatable? It's unverifiable, unfalsifiable.

Note the word 'believe'.


Moreover, if microevolution can and does exist, how can it not be a rational explanation for biodiversity? You must admit, we don't see random assemblages of every imaginable type of life-form, but rather fairly tight groupings of related extants (and those related to earlier types).


Can you quote where I denied micro-evolution?


Moreover, why need there be no macroevolution for God's great plan? How would it even be detectable? In an unrelated question, surely you're not refuting macroevolution, given the fossil record?


The best evidence for macro evolution, is not the fossil record(in my opinion).

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

All right, I admit that indeed, fundamentalist Christians would be objectors (the only ones, mind) to such a premise. Point taken. My reading, however, is that a literalist interpretation is incorrect - and that, moreover, there is no reason for so doing.

OK

This applies to the second comment. ...

GeoffP, I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I took the liberty of moving them to a new thread so that we could give them the focus they deserve.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

You expect Creationuts to read sentences longer than two words? ROFL!

not at all, but sometimes they do shut up because they don't want to say something that's in there.
If they don't shut up, at least I can say I gave them the link and they'll look stupid for not having read it.
all that at the price of posting a link.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ConsequentAtheist,

I realize that you do not think so, Jan, but it was (and is) foolish nonetheless.

Why?

Do you acknowledge that, as I noted above, "very often in science what is being observed and tested is predicted consequences"?

Yep, but I'm afraid it does not constitute any real evidence of macro-evolution. It could be argued that the creator designed intentionally, such similarity or paralogy.

It is also the pervasive consensus of the scientific community.

As I stated before, "....It all depends on who shouts the loundest, and who has the most influence....

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time resulting in descent with modification and, eventually, speciation. You apparently acknowledge short-term changes while denying long term, cumulative changes. If you choose to make such a preposterous claim,

First of all, I acknowledge short-term change because it is a reality. But macro-evolution, I just don't see it as reality in any sense. And all the arguments for macro lack anything that can be called scientific credibility. So I fail to see how you can regard my claims as perposterous, unless you can back this extraordinary claim.
Secondly, my understanding of evolution is;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)

...it seems incumbant upon you to explain the mechanism that constrains evolutionary change.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "evolutionary change", but there is room for genetic variation.

Jan Ardena.

 

[mountainhare]

Jan:

“ We can't make reasonable inferences from the evidence left at the scene of the crime (fingerprints, DNA, firearm comparisons, blood types, etc.)? ”

There is no evidence that one species changed into a completely different species.

Wrong. Speciation has been observed time and time again. Any rational individual who doesn't hold a literal interpretation of scripture infers common descent from the evidence and facts available.

“ You are aware that we can't see electrons? ”

And what does that have to do with a dog turning into a cat?

Ahh Jan, I love it when you feign ignorance. You main argument against macroevolution is that we haven't observed it directly. But as all of my examples demonstrated, science does not necessarily rely on the direct observation of an event or object. If you truly believe that it does, then you will have to say that quantum mechanics is not science, since much of what we know about quantum mechanics has been obtained from making INFERENCES from facts and evidence.

Also, I love how you blather about a dog turning into a cat. No evolutionist would claim such a thing, and it merely highlights your blatant ignorance of the very theory and fact that you feebly criticize.

Do you see this on your computer very often, Jan?

“ Quite simply, you're talking trash, Jan. Direct observation of the event is not required to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that an event occured. ”

Then don’t peddle such nonsense as scientific, keep it in the belief pile. Take a leaf out of johnsmiths book.

I see that you still fail to grasp the simple concept that direct observation of an event or object is not required in science.

And you CONTINUE to equivocate the word 'belief'. Even after having your shit refuted, you continue to parrot the same arguments ad nauseum! Merely because your 'believe' in a fact, theory, or explaination does not somehow make that fact, theory or explaination unscientific.

“ 'Believe' has a number of different meanings, depending on the context. The definitions of believe in the following sentences are obviously quite different...
'I believe in almighty Ra.'
'I believe that gravity will cause me to go 'splat' when I jump off a cliff.'
'I do believe that I will have another tuna sandwich, thanks.' ”

So where are the “different meanings?”

You can't understand the difference between blind religious belief, and a belief supported by facts and evidence? "I believe that the accused is guilty based on the available evidence" and "I believe that Mars the God of War exists" are obviously very different statements, where 'believe' has a radically different meaning.

“ It is most appropriate that a Creationut would equivocate the definition of 'believe' to make a weak argument demonstrating that evolution is a faith. ”

I’m not creating an argument, because there is no need of one. The concept of macro-evolution is a nonsense.

I guess your distorted version of macro-evolution IS nonsense.

“ Surely you can do better? ”

I have better things to do, that’s for sure.

Like attack a scientific fact and theory which you know diddly-squat about?

If you want to BELIEVE that nonsense, go right ahead. But if you’re going to pedal it as “science” then show the proof. I am not interested in your personal talk.

I call your bluff, Creationut. No matter how much evidence I show you, you will continue to parrot the same arguments and bullshit ad nauseum.

“ Oh wait, there is not real scientific argument for Creationism, so semantics is what Creationuts and IDiots fall back on. ”

There is no real stand-alone “scientific argument for anything so profound, because that is not the nature or purpose of modern-science.

So now you are redefining 'science', and telling the scientists what the purpose of science is? How amusing. Keep it coming, Jan. I've always believed that you've had it in you to be a stand-up comedian, and you aren't disappointing!

If it can be shown that macro-evolution is responsible for the diversity of species available today, then I would most certainly embrace it, as it would be pointless not to.

I'll present evidence when you actually get yourself an education in basic science, and understand what 'macroevolution' actually entails.

“ If 'direct observation' of an event was required, you would have to say goodbye to many important theories and facts in many fields of science, such as astronomy, particle physics, quantum mechanics, forensics, paleontology and geology. ”

We can observe evolution easily enough, why is macro-evolution so unobservable?

We can observe specks of dirt easily enough, so why are electrons so unobservable? AHA, I've just proven that electrons don't exist! It's obviously a conspiracy! WICKED!

And by the way, macroevolution has been observed... in the fossil record, in molecular biology, in vestigal appendages, etc. Merely ignoring the facts does not cause them to disappear.

I don't think that statement was foolish at all, macro evolution cannot be observerd or tested, it is completely unfalsifiable, therefore it cannot be a scientific fact.

Which is why you haven't commented in my "Chromosome Challenge for Creationuts" thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50486

Gee Jan, it seems that scientists made a prediction about common descent, and then they used observation and experimentation to confirm their predictions. Looks like your old canard about evolution being 'untestable' and 'unfalsifiable' is bullshit.

As a long time poster and lurker, I'm quite aware of Jan's method of operation. After having her ass served to her on a silver platter, she'll feign indignation, and bitch about how 'nasty' and 'vulgar' us evolutionists are, and that she is 'above' conversing with us.

Quite simply, I am above conversing with Jan. I don't know why I bother attempting to defend a scientific fact and theory against a moron who doesn't have even the faintest idea about what she criticizes. After years of having her arguments soundly refuted, Jan still spews the same old shit, like a drone sent by Answers in Genesis to ravage the internet.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Creationuts are like mushrooms. They live in the dark, and are fed solely on shit. And even when you eat them alive, they still somehow manage to reproduce.