Looks like it's time for another evolution thread

[Cerpin Taxt]

A note irrelevant to the topic of this thread: In my opinion, there aren't nearly enough separate threads started in this forum, when the diverse variety of topics that have come up in the forum's largest thread are considered.

Anyway...

In another thread, it became apparent that there is at least one and perhaps several members that hold some unusual beliefs about reality, and the theory of evolution in particular. I think that subject deserves its own thread, and I will begin it by addressing a a post or two that appeared in that aforementioned thread.

To begin, let me provide a link to a superb master document to which many references will be made:

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Now...

Fossils prove The Bible is true

This is a peculiar claim, in that the fossil record 1.) extends history by orders of magnitude into the past when compared to the Biblical literalist interpretation of the Bible, and 2.) quite clearly exhibits a phylogenetic history at odds with the literal interpretation of Genesis.

DNA also

In a similar fashion, this claim seems very duibious, given that in a specific example the Bible describes a completely factually incorrect idea about trait inheritance in goats in Genesis chapter 30.

not sure what ring species is

I'm quite sure you are not. Ring species exhibit the continuity of biological diversification, and the malleable nature of species classifications. They represent a mid point in the completion of the emergence of a new taxon.

Show me some from there that aren't fabricated drawings.

Drawings are "fabricated" by definition. I'd be very curious what your idea of an "unfabricated drawing" looks like.

Regardless, how did you miss this collection of photographs -- not "drawings" -- from your own link?

and theory and conjecture.

I'd like you to detail exactly what part of the following image represents "theory and conjecture" -- note that this image was also acquired by following the link that you supplied:

Why are so many clam fossils in the closed position? I used to find them all the time..all closed. Clams open up when they die;Unless tons of mud are instantly thrown on top of them from a flood or something.

Do you understand that clams live underground on purpose? They dig themselves under many feet of soil while they are alive. If they die underground, they don't need "tons of mud" "instantly thrown on top of them from a flood or something." They are already buried.

Human skulls are not acceptable..I even saw one with a 90-degree jaw ..no.

What does that prove?

People are widely variable.

So?

Show me something where one species is in transition to another;because that's what evolution says happens.

I've already covered this ad nauseum. It should be noted in reality one species does not transition into another species, per se, but rather that separate populations of one species become sufficiently genetically isolated from eachother as to be identified as distinct units unto themselves.

Yet it doesn't.

Well, on the one hand, yes, one species doesn't turn into another, and this is not what evolution predicts. On the other hand, speciation events are quite common, and have been directly observed. Here is one of the several links that I had already supplied to you to establish that fact:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I think the real question is why do you keep repeating this falsehood when ample evidence has been provided to you?

I'm not seeing any scientific evidence of transitional fossils yet.

If that is the case, it is because you are not looking at it. It is everywhere to be found. It is my opinion that you must ask yourself what kind of reputation do you want to build for yourself among the other participants of the forum who also see this cornucopia of evidence all the while you deny its existence.

 

[The_AC]

But dude, why are Chimpanzees still here?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But dude, why are Chimpanzees still here?

If God made Adam from dirt, why is dirt still here?

 

[Greenman]

The simple reality is that if you accept that there is a creator, that supersedes any other evidence.
I don't get why it's so important to talk people out of their faith. Wouldn't your time be better spent talking people out of using drugs, or drinking to much, or eating an unhealthy diet? Why is it that the one thing that isn't doing them harm is the one you are so concerned about? I also wonder why it's bible based religion that is the target. If your goal if to educate the ignorant masses about the pitfalls of religion, wouldn't the Muslims be the first target since there are more of them?

Is it possible that the entire point of this thread is to get a whole bunch of atheists to agree with you and then have a good sneer at the Christians? Be honest, I'll accept any answer you give me at face value.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The simple reality is that if you accept that there is a creator, that supersedes any other evidence.

Non-sequitur. The majority of scientists, and even biologists, are theists. They believe in a creator, and yet they do not allow it to supersede the evidence they observe.

I don't get why it's so important to talk people out of their faith.

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of their faith. I'm trying to halt the perpetuation of outright falsehoods. I will never purport to prove that a god does not exist, but a person is not entitled to claim -- or worse, convince others -- that things like a global flood and special creation are true.

Wouldn't your time be better spent talking people out of using drugs, or drinking to much, or eating an unhealthy diet?

Do you know that I do not do those things also?

Why is it that the one thing that isn't doing them harm is the one you are so concerned about?

This question is answered pretty regularly in the various forms in which it appears.

1.) It's not the only thing I'm concerned about.
2.) I'm not convinced that believing outright falsehoods "isn't doing them harm."
3.) I prefer to live among an educated population. The propagation of creationist falsehoods is contrary to that goal.
4.) The people with these false beliefs are not content to keep their ignorance to themselves, but they vote based upon those false premises, thereby influencing public policy, and they perpetrate these frauds upon children and other persons.

I also wonder why it's bible based religion that is the target.

In this country, and among those that speak the same language as me, it is the largest contingent of ignorance which I am prepared to address. There are actually a growing number of Islamic creationists often parroting the same canards as Christian creationists, but the nice thing about evolution is that the facts are religion-neutral.

That is to say, I debate Christian creationists because they populate these forums. I will just as willingly debate a Muslim creationist if one were to appear here.

If your goal if to educate the ignorant masses about the pitfalls of religion, wouldn't the Muslims be the first target since there are more of them?

1.) My goal isn't to "educate the ignorant masses about the pitfalls of religion."
2.) The most recent research I could find on the subject suggests that there are not in fact more Muslims than Christians, so I have to wonder where you get your information.

Is it possible that the entire point of this thread is to get a whole bunch of atheists to agree with you and then have a good sneer at the Christians?

It's possible that the moon is made of green cheese. Lots of things are possible. I can tell you that what you describe is not my point of this thread.

Also, this isn't about atheism or theism. This is about fantasy vs. reality. There are no shortage of theists that accept the science exactly as I have presented it, and as it is presented in the references to which I linked. Evolution is not solely the domain of atheists.

Be honest, I'll accept any answer you give me at face value.

The point of this thread was stated in the OP. Broadly, the larger religion thread had lost any focus pertaining to the original topic, and when the subject of evolution came up I decided to spin off the main thread with a separate thread about evolution. In so doing, I took several of the posts from that thread and addressed them here.

 

[AViking]

You ask why we should care? Ignorant people are a problem. Someone who doesn't believe in evolution or thinks the sun revolves around the earth is doing harm by passing on their ignorance to their kids. It becomes a generational problem of people who are unable to critically think, evaluate something based upon evidence and the scientific method, or make sound judgement calls. If you believe that evolution doesn't happen because your preacher told you so then generally speaking you're going to believe a lot of other things just because a man with authority over you told you so as well. Maybe it will be to discriminate against homosexuals or maybe it will be to hate another religion and wage war against them.

 

[Greenman]

{Extraneous comments removed}

The point of this thread was stated in the OP. Broadly, the larger religion thread had lost any focus pertaining to the original topic, and when the subject of evolution came up I decided to spin off the main thread with a separate thread about evolution. In so doing, I took several of the posts from that thread and addressed them here.

Fair enough. Though you'll find cat herding to be a far more rewarding career than trying to change someones religious views.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fair enough. Though you'll find cat herding to be a far more rewarding career than trying to change someones religious views.

Y'know, I've been doing this kind of thing for a really long time, and I am under no illusions about the flexibility of the beliefs of the types of people that will actively defend creationist viewpoints on a public forum. I also realize that there are more people that read forums than ever participate, so I recognize that there is a larger audience that can be influenced.

Not to suggest I have megalomaniacal delusions about the sphere of my influence -- most significantly I do this because I enjoy it. It motivates me to be sharp with my facts and arguments, and to stay abreast of the current events that pertain to these subjects. I do think that they are important for the reasons given, but I don't necessarily believe I'm having an extraordinary impact.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of their faith. I'm trying to halt the perpetuation of outright falsehoods.

so let me get this right -- you started a thread with a thread title that was meant to deceive and attract those who would disagree with you in the hopes of educating the ignorant masses about the pitfalls of religion?

well duh....

 

[Greenman]

Y'know, I've been doing this kind of thing for a really long time, and I am under no illusions about the flexibility of the beliefs of the types of people that will actively defend creationist viewpoints on a public forum. I also realize that there are more people that read forums than ever participate, so I recognize that there is a larger audience that can be influenced.

Not to suggest I have megalomaniacal delusions about the sphere of my influence -- most significantly I do this because I enjoy it. It motivates me to be sharp with my facts and arguments, and to stay abreast of the current events that pertain to these subjects. I do think that they are important for the reasons given, but I don't necessarily believe I'm having an extraordinary impact.

I suppose the urge to preach just comes naturally to some people.

 

[DigDog]

I was brought up with religion as one of my classes in school. We had a priest come and teach us, n all. I'm from rome, so catholicism is pretty big there. I was quite profoundly exposed to christianity, read the bible, the whole shebang.

I found out i was an atheist quite early. I simply would hear the priest teach, ask questions back, and when it became apparent the guy didn't have answers (i.e he had no f* idea what he was talking about), that was it for me. I was an atheist.

Believing or not has nothing to do with your upbringing. It has everything to do with how yer noodle works.
Some people will be inherently atheist, or at least disbelievers, some others will be religious. You can explain as much as you want, even prove it, but nothing will change.

My dad used to LOVE churches. He loved roman-catholic based works, and could quote scripture and stuff from the bible nobody cares to remember. He also didn't believe a single word about the man in the sky and magic and ghosts n stuff.
My mom coldn't tell you anything about the bible, but she is profoundly religious. She needs to pray. She needs that mental mechanism to function in life.

It's silly of a learned man to expect anything else. Question yourself : why does religion even exists? The answer is, that it's a survival tool. Some people's mind need it. People aren't creationists because they haven't been explained science correctly, they are creationists because they are. Expecting otherwise is like explaining to someone that sleep is an archaic survival function, and the expect them to suddenly stop sleeping.
stahp. plox./

 

[sandorski]

I was brought up with religion as one of my classes in school. We had a priest come and teach us, n all. I'm from rome, so catholicism is pretty big there. I was quite profoundly exposed to christianity, read the bible, the whole shebang.

I found out i was an atheist quite early. I simply would hear the priest teach, ask questions back, and when it became apparent the guy didn't have answers (i.e he had no f* idea what he was talking about), that was it for me. I was an atheist.

Believing or not has nothing to do with your upbringing. It has everything to do with how yer noodle works.
Some people will be inherently atheist, or at least disbelievers, some others will be religious. You can explain as much as you want, even prove it, but nothing will change.

My dad used to LOVE churches. He loved roman-catholic based works, and could quote scripture and stuff from the bible nobody cares to remember. He also didn't believe a single word about the man in the sky and magic and ghosts n stuff.
My mom coldn't tell you anything about the bible, but she is profoundly religious. She needs to pray. She needs that mental mechanism to function in life.

It's silly of a learned man to expect anything else. Question yourself : why does religion even exists? The answer is, that it's a survival tool. Some people's mind need it. People aren't creationists because they haven't been explained science correctly, they are creationists because they are. Expecting otherwise is like explaining to someone that sleep is an archaic survival function, and the expect them to suddenly stop sleeping.
stahp. plox./

Disagree. People do change their Minds, they are not born as 1 or the other.

This thread isn't really intended to be about Religion though. It just so happens that those who oppose Evolution are almost always Religious.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism. Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.* Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

 

[sandorski]

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism. Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.* Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

There is a philosophical difference. However, that does not level the playing field, as it were. All the Evidence supports the Naturalistic/Scientific view as stated in the Theory of Evolution. None of it supports the Theistic/Creationist idea.

 

[OverVolt]

The majority of scientists, and even biologists, are theists. They believe in a creator, and yet they do not allow it to supersede the evidence they observe.

Yup.

 

[AViking]

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism. Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.* Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

There are fossils in shale rock and sandstone around the world that show the first complex life on Earth and you can date this rock and follow the changes throughout the ages. You can see when mouths evolved, land animals emerged, animals took to the sky and so on.

Nobody is saying that suddenly an animal sprouts wings or we turned from Ape to man in a day. That's not the way it works. It's natural selection and is a slow but steady event.

Genetics today can prove quite a bit. Way more than even a few years ago when I was in University.

What's more interesting than debating with someone on whether God is responsible for doing all this or it's evolution is how things happened. How did wings evolve. They evolved 4 times independently if I remember correctly and at least in the case of insects they have 3 possible explanations. It would be really interesting if they could prove some of these things or at least better explain them.

 

[DrPizza]

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism. Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.* Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

??? Time machine isn't necessary. See: Fossil record. And, more and more fossils are found every day.

There are numerous ways to test these hypotheses - DNA, fossil record, etc.

 

[AViking]

Might as well restate it but lets say you studied the fossil record, archaeology, biology, or whatnot 10 years ago. The amount of new evidence found just since then is enormous.

 

[moonbogg]

Why waste time debating the fact of evolution with derps who refuse to acknowledge it? I say if they want to be stupid, let them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why waste time debating the fact of evolution with derps who refuse to acknowledge it? I say if they want to be stupid, let them.

But these are voting people. That is scary.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I suppose the urge to preach just comes naturally to some people.

Your not-so-subtle barb is misdirected. I'm not here to preach -- I'm here to teach. I am not here to advocate for anything other than acknowledgement of the facts. I don't care if you believe in Yaweh, Krishna, Buddha, Allah or no gods at all. If you claim that the earth's biological diversity is not the result of evolution and common descent, you are wrong and I can demonstrate it.

That isn't "preaching," no matter how self-righteous it makes you feel to label it such.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of their faith. I'm trying to halt the perpetuation of outright falsehoods. I will never purport to prove that a god does not exist, but a person is not entitled to claim -- or worse, convince others -- that things like a global flood and special creation are true.

3.) I prefer to live among an educated population. The propagation of creationist falsehoods is contrary to that goal.
4.) The people with these false beliefs are not content to keep their ignorance to themselves, but they vote based upon those false premises, thereby influencing public policy, and they perpetrate these frauds upon children and other persons.

This is about fantasy vs. reality. There are no shortage of theists that accept the science exactly as I have presented it, and as it is presented in the references to which I linked. Evolution is not solely the domain of atheists.

Sure seems like you have an axe to grind................

Wouldn`t your time be best spent feeding the poor and needy.......volunterring at a soup kitchen........

 

[crashtestdummy]

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism. Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.* Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

I disagree, but it may depend on your definition of "proof". Proof, as a completely self-enclosed and logically perfect statement of reality, does not exist in Science. There are always places where there may be difference between what I expect to be happening and what is reality. I say that I feel keys below my fingertips, but that may all be a delusion created by a divine being to make me think I'm using a keyboard. I cannot in any way prove that it is not true. Science, then, has no interest in such notions of proof.

What science does is create a series of predictions. I felt the key on my finger a moment ago, and I thus predict that when I lower my finger again, I will feel the key again (this is a hypothesis). As long as this remains repeatably observable, it will be the theory that best predicts an outcome. If evidence is introduced that suggests that I will no longer feel a key when I lower my finger, then my theory will have to change. This is as certain as science ever gets.

Common descent is the current theory because it created predictable results. I can look at two fossils and predict that there will be a common ancestor between them, and will often be able to find such a specimen. As long as this remains the case, common descent will be the accepted theory. A creation model, regardless of whether or not it is "true" does not provide me with any such predictive power (at least that anyone has been able to demonstrate), and thus does not rise to the level of scientific hypothesis. As you said, the creation model can be made to "fit" the data, but unless you can make a prediction that can then be demonstrated as wrong, it is not a proper hypothesis.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've seen this gibberish posted from you before, and I thoroughly refuted it at that time. It is dishonest in the utmost to continue to spruik such ridiculous nonsense. Depending on how motivated (read: bored) I get later I might even look it up.

It's not possible to prove the common descent hypothesis any more than it's possible to scientifically prove (or disprove) young Earth creationism.

Utterly false. Common descent has been tested and re-tested to a degree unparalleled by any other scientific model except for possibly quantum mechanics.

YEC, in contrast, is has been scientifically falsified through multiple lines of independent evidence, i.e. tree rings, radiometric dating, astronomical triangulation.

Neither are scientifically testable hypotheses.*

Bullshit. Common descent is clearly falsifiable. Read the big hurking link I put in the OP. Throughout the myriad documents you can find there, potential falsifications are throughly described.

Both may be posed** such that they explain all observables and future observations equally well. Therefore, they are not scientifically distinguishable. The only difference, then, is philosophical.

Utter hogwash. What you're talking about is commonly known as "omphalism," which is basically a carefully disguised retreat into solipsism. It represents an arbitrary denial of the evidence on the basis of a perceived lack of rigor in empirical inferences. To deny any scientific theory on such a basis is literally tantamount to denying that there exits a computer monitor in front of your face.

*At least until someone invents a very good time machine.
**Most idiots do not pose either such that this is true but it can be done by simply choosing an initial condition equal to the set of all observables at an arbitrary point in the past.

If you reject the idea that you are really just a brain in a vat in a mad scientist's laboratory where reality is falsely created for you through the careful and utterly convincing manipulation of your nervous system by the mad scientist's apparatus, and instead believe that an actual reality exists wherein you live and operate and your senses can be trusted, then you are a hypocrite.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've seen this gibberish posted from you before, and I thoroughly refuted it at that time. It is dishonest in the utmost to continue to spruik such ridiculous nonsense. Depending on how motivated (read: bored) I get later I might even look it up.


Utterly false. Common descent has been tested and re-tested to a degree unparalleled by any other scientific model except for possibly quantum mechanics.

YEC, in contrast, is has been scientifically falsified through multiple lines of independent evidence, i.e. tree rings, radiometric dating, astronomical triangulation.


Bullshit. Common descent is clearly falsifiable. Read the big hurking link I put in the OP. Throughout the myriad documents you can find there, potential falsifications are throughly described.


Utter hogwash. What you're talking about is commonly known as "omphalism," which is basically a carefully disguised retreat into solipsism. It represents an arbitrary denial of the evidence on the basis of a perceived lack of rigor in empirical inferences. To deny any scientific theory on such a basis is literally tantamount to denying that there exits a computer monitor in front of your face.



If you reject the idea that you are really just a brain in a vat in a mad scientist's laboratory where reality is falsely created for you through the careful and utterly convincing manipulation of your nervous system by the mad scientist's apparatus, and instead believe that an actual reality exists wherein you live and operate and your senses can be trusted, then you are a hypocrite.

Rigorously define "computer monitor". He could be posting from his iphone.

:biggrin: