Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)

[ParkingPlaces]

Just to throw a wrench in the conversation, this is what researchers have to say about the tiktaalik, now that they have had the time to uncover and analyze the back half of one:

“Previous theories, based on the best available data, propose that a shift occurred from ‘front-wheel drive’ locomotion in fish to more of a ‘four-wheel drive’ in tetrapods. But it looks like this shift actually began to happen in fish, not in limbed animals,” said Prof Shubin, who is the lead author of the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So the previous theory was that critters such as this developed fins that could help them walk, they crawled up on land, and eventually developed rear legs. The new theory, base on new information, is that they also developed rear fins that could help them walk when on land.

So the big difference is that we now think that the rear fins developed a walking capability before they come onto land. That the rear legs developed when they were more fish link than when they were developing into tetrapods.

That change, based on previously unavailable information, ruins the whole of evolutionary theory how, BS?

Added: Here is the link that I pulled the above quote from: http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-new-fossils-tiktaalik-roseae-01686.html

[BibleStudent]

BibleStudent

I don't expect you to acknowledge my post. But, anyway....

Where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?

Let me put it this way……

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.

[BibleStudent]

Just to throw a wrench in the conversation, this is what researchers have to say about the tiktaalik, now that they have had the time to uncover and analyze the back half of one:

“Previous theories, based on the best available data, propose that a shift occurred from ‘front-wheel drive’ locomotion in fish to more of a ‘four-wheel drive’ in tetrapods. But it looks like this shift actually began to happen in fish, not in limbed animals,” said Prof Shubin, who is the lead author of the paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So the previous theory was that critters such as this developed fins that could help them walk, they crawled up on land, and eventually developed rear legs. The new theory, base on new information, is that they also developed rear fins that could help them walk when on land.

So the big difference is that we now think that the rear fins developed a walking capability before they come onto land. That the rear legs developed when they were more fish link than when they were developing into tetrapods.

That change, based on previously unavailable information, ruins the whole of evolutionary theory how, BS?

Added: Here is the link that I pulled the above quote from: http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-new-fossils-tiktaalik-roseae-01686.html

The point I was raising was not an attempt to dismiss tiktaalik as a transitional fossil. I was simply pointing out that the narrator in the video was placing emphasis on how the discovery had been accurately predicted and how he professed the importance of the prediction.....only for this prediction to be later refuted by the discovery of the prints in Poland. In other words, the prediction did not turn out to be a prediction after all.

[screwtape]

This is what I dislike about conversations with creationists.  You get backed into a corner, overstating your certitude of things, when you really know better, because any sign of the possibility that you don't know something for sure, 100%, is an opportunity to insert their stupid god.  As I stated earlier, they keep demanding answers until you inevitably run out of them and then say, "AHA!  Gotcha!"  Fuck that.

[shnozzola]

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Bible Student,
    Just in the last few decades AIDS has mutated to infect us, and a very powerful mutation.  Up until now, there wasn't enough science to stop these devastating mutations, so whole groups of homo sapiens, whatever branches, would have been wiped out - no retroviral drugs being produced, you know.  But there was always, as there are now, naturally immune homo sapiens that could survive - this little mutation, say even as much as 1000 years, becomes huge with all the many other constant mutations. And these folks reproduce and some carry and survive, and some still do not.

    A devastating swine flu is coming.  And think of polio before science.  Measles before science.  Small pox.  In a way, science doesn't allow evolution to work correctly, if some small pox remains in a little valley infecting animals, it could be surviving and mutating.  Yes, this is all micro evolution - and that is really the only type there is.  You so underestimate time - did you look at the Simpsons video that Graybeard posted?

I realize we keep giving you back and forth the same, and you give us back and forth the same.  It would be interesting to read nogods colleague's views and your rebuttal.

[SevenPatch]

Apparently it's not possible to walk across the United States.

[BibleStudent]

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Bible Student,
    Just in the last few decades AIDS has mutated to infect us, and a very powerful mutation.  Up until now, there wasn't enough science to stop these devastating mutations, so whole groups of homo sapiens, whatever branches, would have been wiped out - no retroviral drugs being produced, you know.  But there was always, as there are now, naturally immune homo sapiens that could survive - this little mutation, say even as much as 1000 years, becomes huge with all the many other constant mutations. And these folks reproduce and some carry and survive, and some still do not.

    A devastating swine flu is coming.  And think of polio before science.  Measles before science.  Small pox.  In a way, science doesn't allow evolution to work correctly, if some small pox remains in a little valley infecting animals, it could be surviving and mutating.  Yes, this is all micro evolution - and that is really the only type there is.  You so underestimate time - did you look at the Simpsons video that Graybeard posted?

I realize we keep giving you back and forth the same, and you give us back and forth the same.  It would be interesting to read nogods colleague's views and your rebuttal.

Read this...it's not a long read and definitely thought provoking:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1113The

[median]

BibleStudent

I don't expect you to acknowledge my post. But, anyway....

Where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?

Let me put it this way……

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Therefore……

Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.

Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:

1.   If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2.   Microevolution occurred
3.   Therefore, evolution is true.

Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.

These are more statements that demonstrate quite clearly at least two points regarding you. 1) You have built up a strawman (or a multitude of them) regarding what counts as evidence in the biological sciences (drawing non-existent distinctions which scientists do not agree with you upon - such as "micro/macro" of which there is no significant difference, and is not the only line of evidence that demonstrates common ancestry). And 2) that you have built up a faulty standard of evidence which is not the standard used in nearly all avenues of science - falsely thinking that somehow if we can't physically go back in time millions of years then common descent can't be demonstrated or that we need "direct evidence" in order to reasonably conclude (to the best explanation) that the evidence points, and has pointed (and has been independently verified) to the common ancestry of life.

A build up of small changes (be they non-lethal or beneficial) can reasonably be concluded to bring about large changes (just like wind blowing small amounts of sand toward a small dune can eventually lead that dune to becoming a giant mountain of sand. This arbitrary line you are attempting to draw between micro/macro is baseless because it ignores the clear fact that small changes can, and do, in fact lead to larger changes over time. We see lots of examples of this happening in nature. Yet still, because of your presuppositional precommitment to your theology, you ignore it. FAIL.

Arguments about "It's so improbable" are absolutely useless (and fallacious as we have already pointed out to you but you refuse to stop using them) because probabilities increase when you have millions (indeed billions) of trials taking place at any given time (just like you admit with small changes!). Notice your argument from ignorance fallacy above (It's unlikely, therefore large changes couldn't have happened). Further, it wouldn't matter if something was really improbable. If you win the lottery do you say "God did it" or was it chance? Improbable things happen all the time (such as taking any 7 cards from a deck b/c any hand is highly improbable!). Your methodology for separating fact from fiction is at issue because you keep trying to redefine the terms of science to suit your agenda (defending your theology in the midst of your own confirmation bias). That is dishonest in the very least.

Let's change your syllogism to more accurately represent the situation:


1. If common ancestry is true we would expect to see:
A) speciation (as defined by experts in the respective fields)
B) lesser complex structures moving toward more complex ones in the fossil record
C) different species of animals sharing unique homologous structure patterns and combinations (in the fossil record, etc - such as Tektaalik and many many reproducing others)
D) that we would never find more complex species in very early time periods of strata, and
E) predictions in independent fields of the biological sciences will converge on very similar answers  [This list is not exhaustive]


2. A, B, C, D, and E are the case

3. Therefore, common ancestry is true and confirmed to the best of current human understanding.

[SevenPatch]

Speaking of heart evolution, I think it's cool how our understanding of macro evolution is leading the effort to cure heart disease.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090902133629.htm

[Ataraxia]

We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc).

You do not know what macroevolution means. You have been fed an erroneous definition by creationist sources, who have dishonestly concocted this alternative definition which does not conform to the scientific meaning, yet use it as if it is the scientific meaning. Why not get your information on macroevolution from the the people who actually coined the term? I've told you before and I'll tell you again - macroevolution is evolution at the level of speciation. Speciation has been observed, so macroevolution is a fact. You can bang on and on about "large scale biological changes", but that is not what the term macroevolution was coined for. Do your homework, do some real research and stop putting all your chips on what creationist sources tell you.

EDIT: To add,

Do you understand that a population of a species can split into two groups and become isolated from one another?
Do you agree that genes can mutate?
If yes, do you understand that reproductive genes mutate?
From there, do you understand that one (or even both) of these now separated groups of the same species can evolve to an extent that their reproductive genes have mutated?
Do you understand that if you now remove the isolation and put these two groups back together, yet they can't reproduce, that you now have two different species?

If you understand this and accept it, then you accept macroevolution.

You see, all the acceptance of microevolution and not macroevolution is, is the acceptance that all genes can mutate except for the reproductive ones, which is fucking bonkers. But of course, that's if you use the actual real definition of macroevolution coined by the scientists who use it as a label for something observed, and not the made up bullshit one concocted by creationists.

[BibleStudent]

Let's change your syllogism to more accurately represent the situation:


1. If common ancestry is true we would expect to see:
A) speciation (as defined by experts in the respective fields)
B) lesser complex structures moving toward more complex ones in the fossil record
C) different species of animals sharing unique homologous structure patterns and combinations (in the fossil record, etc - such as Tektaalik and many many reproducing others)
D) that we would never find more complex species in very early time periods of strata, and
E) predictions in independent fields of the biological sciences will converge on very similar answers  [This list is not exhaustive]


2. A, B, C, D, and E are the case

3. Therefore, common ancestry is true and confirmed to the best of current human understanding.

You forgot at least two others:

F) A biological process capable of demonstrating that A, B, and C are the result of evolution.
G) Evidence of an event that produced the ‘common ancestor.’ 

....which leads to a correction of your conclusion..........

3. Therefore, we can only speculate that common ancestry may be true.

[Foxy Freedom]

Let's change your syllogism to more accurately represent the situation:


1. If common ancestry is true we would expect to see:
A) speciation (as defined by experts in the respective fields)
B) lesser complex structures moving toward more complex ones in the fossil record
C) different species of animals sharing unique homologous structure patterns and combinations (in the fossil record, etc - such as Tektaalik and many many reproducing others)
D) that we would never find more complex species in very early time periods of strata, and
E) predictions in independent fields of the biological sciences will converge on very similar answers  [This list is not exhaustive]


2. A, B, C, D, and E are the case

3. Therefore, common ancestry is true and confirmed to the best of current human understanding.

You forgot at least two others:

F) A biological process capable of demonstrating that A, B, and C are the result of evolution.
G) Evidence of an event that produced the ‘common ancestor.’ 

....which leads to a correction of your conclusion..........

3. Therefore, we can only speculate that common ancestry may be true.

G) is faulty logic caused by the confirmation bias of your indoctrination.

Anything prior to the common ancestor is not part of the evolution from it.

......which leads to a correction of your conclusion......

4) the evidence supports common ancestry

[BibleStudent]

Do you understand that a population of a species can split into two groups and become isolated from one another?
Do you agree that genes can mutate?
If yes, do you understand that reproductive genes mutate?
From there, do you understand that one (or even both) of these now separated groups of the same species can evolve to an extent that their reproductive genes have mutated?
Do you understand that if you now remove the isolation and put these two groups back together, yet they can't reproduce, that you now have two different species?

If you understand this and accept it, then you accept macroevolution.

You see, all the acceptance of microevolution and not macroevolution is, is the acceptance that all genes can mutate except for the reproductive ones, which is fucking bonkers. But of course, that's if you use the actual real definition of macroevolution coined by the scientists who use it as a label for something observed, and not the made up bullshit one concocted by creationists.

The question remains: Where is your evidence that this ‘speciation’ process can produce fundamentally new types of organisms and/or new complex biological structures ?

You see, the definition of ‘speciation’ that you use is vague and misleading. It dupes people such as yourself into thinking that because one species of birds won’t do the nasty with another species of birds anymore that somehow it makes a case for snakes evolving from lizards.

I honestly don’t think you fully understand the enormity of the chasm that your idea of ‘speciation’ is incapable of bridging. And, this is not an isolated observation made by just me and my so-called confirmation bias. There are many in the scientific ranks who have expressed a similar concern:

 James Tour, who is one of the most cited chemists in the world:

"… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules." 1

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”
Lecture: James M. Tour Ph.D, Georgia Tech, November 1, 2012


Arguing about the definition of ‘macroevolution’ is simply an attempt to blur a line that clearly exists in reality. You are attempting to portray the debate over ‘macroevo’ and ‘microevo’ as if it were a superficial matter when, in fact, it strikes at the very core of the hypothesis.

[SevenPatch]

Let's change your syllogism to more accurately represent the situation:


1. If common ancestry is true we would expect to see:
A) speciation (as defined by experts in the respective fields)
B) lesser complex structures moving toward more complex ones in the fossil record
C) different species of animals sharing unique homologous structure patterns and combinations (in the fossil record, etc - such as Tektaalik and many many reproducing others)
D) that we would never find more complex species in very early time periods of strata, and
E) predictions in independent fields of the biological sciences will converge on very similar answers  [This list is not exhaustive]


2. A, B, C, D, and E are the case

3. Therefore, common ancestry is true and confirmed to the best of current human understanding.

You forgot at least two others:

F) A biological process capable of demonstrating that A, B, and C are the result of evolution.

He didn't forget. They're not necessary.

You already accept the biological process capable of demonstrating that A, B, and C are the result of evolution.  You call it microevolution.

Deal with it.

G) Evidence of an event that produced the ‘common ancestor.’ 

....which leads to a correction of your conclusion..........

3. Therefore, we can only speculate that common ancestry may be true.

If you had the following evidence:

Z - Y - X - W - V - U - T - S - R- Q - P - O - N - M - L - K - J - I - H - G - F - E - D.

Which conclusion would be more reasonable?

Well, it appears that all the evidence points to this being the English alphabet being written backwords.  The evidence points to C being  the next letter in the sequence.

OR

Well, we really don't know if C is the next letter in the sequence because we can't prove that B and A happened.  Also, T, P, O and L are questionable since they are so different from Z, Y, X and W. 

As Foxy Freedom says, "Evidence of an event that produced the 'common ancestor'" is faulty logic.  This type of logic destroys science.  With this type of logic, you can't function in life.

Using this logic presents serious problems with critical thinking and cognative reason.  For instance, if someone wrecks into the back of your car while your at a stop, you get out to figure out what happened and see that the person that wrecked into you was also wrecked into by the car behind them.  When you investigate the third car, you see that they have a flat tire.  That person says that they hit something on the road which caused the flat tire which caused them to panic and wreck into the car in front of them.  Upon investigation of the tire see that their is a puncture which caused the tire to become flat.  The puncture is a small hole which could have been caused by a large nail.  However if we use faulty logic like "well if you can't find the nail then the flat tire didn't happen" you can blame the driver for whatever reason you like.

This is exactly the purpose of faulty logic, to allow someone to believe whatever they want to be the truth.

Unfortunately, the truth is whatever the truth is, whether we like it or not.

[SevenPatch]

Arguing about the definition of ‘macroevolution’ is simply an attempt to blur a line that clearly exists in reality. You are attempting to portray the debate over ‘macroevo’ and ‘microevo’ as if it were a superficial matter when, in fact, it strikes at the very core of the hypothesis.

Ahhh.  There is the problem.  You think there is a line that clearly exists in reality.  Perhaps you can show us this line that clearly exists?

Median posted this link earlier http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Perhaps you can tell us where the line exists between ape and human.  Apparently creationist and ID "scientists" can't agree, and of course we already know paleontologists can't either but that is because they've realized there is no line.

Your "line that clearly exists in reality" is based on human intuition.  Unfortunately, human intuition isn't always right, and when it comes to complex situations it is usually wrong.

[Ataraxia]

Do you understand that a population of a species can split into two groups and become isolated from one another?
Do you agree that genes can mutate?
If yes, do you understand that reproductive genes mutate?
From there, do you understand that one (or even both) of these now separated groups of the same species can evolve to an extent that their reproductive genes have mutated?
Do you understand that if you now remove the isolation and put these two groups back together, yet they can't reproduce, that you now have two different species?

If you understand this and accept it, then you accept macroevolution.

You see, all the acceptance of microevolution and not macroevolution is, is the acceptance that all genes can mutate except for the reproductive ones, which is fucking bonkers. But of course, that's if you use the actual real definition of macroevolution coined by the scientists who use it as a label for something observed, and not the made up bullshit one concocted by creationists.

The question remains: Where is your evidence that this ‘speciation’ process can produce fundamentally new types of organisms and/or new complex biological structures ?

The question is a complete non-sequitur. I'm telling you how speciation and macroevolution are defined by the people who coined the terms - as labels for observed phenomena. If you want to continue with the erroneous line if questioning - questions that are not in need of answering for the sake of what speciation and macroevolution is, then ask them in the relevant context.

You see, the definition of ‘speciation’ that you use is vague and misleading. It dupes people such as yourself into thinking that because one species of birds won’t do the nasty with another species of birds anymore that somehow it makes a case for snakes evolving from lizards.

No, the definition I use is the definition that science uses. You, along with your misplaced hubris, are using a definition that has been made up by creationists in the attempt to muddy the waters. If you continue to do this and ignore the definition science uses, then no ground can be made from your dishonesty.

Also, nowhere have I tried to make a case for snakes evolving from lizards. This is your monster, it's your shotgun approach at punching a hole in evolution. I couldn't give a toss about this point. All I am doing here is explaining to you what speciation and macroevolution is according to science. It doesn't have to take on the unobservable lizards to snakes shit you keep harping on about, because there are observable cases of speciation that show macroevolution as fact.

I honestly don’t think you fully understand the enormity of the chasm that your idea of ‘speciation’ is incapable of bridging. And, this is not an isolated observation made by just me and my so-called confirmation bias. There are many in the scientific ranks who have expressed a similar concern:

 James Tour, who is one of the most cited chemists in the world:

"… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules." 1

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science - with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public - because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said - I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”
Lecture: James M. Tour Ph.D, Georgia Tech, November 1, 2012

Really, another ID proponent (who actually realises ID isn't science by the way) expresses similar "concern"?! I can't say I'm blown away by such a revelation....

....Oh, and again, there is no chasm to bridge here. It's a straw man built by creationists.

Arguing about the definition of ‘macroevolution’ is simply an attempt to blur a line that clearly exists in reality. You are attempting to portray the debate over ‘macroevo’ and ‘microevo’ as if it were a superficial matter when, in fact, it strikes at the very core of the hypothesis.

It is superficial to those who actually work in the fields that involve evolutionary theory. It's a total non-issue because they are terms coined to label observed phenomena. The only ones who are getting all prissy over it are those who have taken the terms, twisted them to mean something else and then built up a straw man to knock down evolution. Unfortunately, you have fallen for this bullshit, yet you seem quite happy about it. Perhaps that's because it fits in with your pre-existing beliefs that are too cherishable to be quashed. Shame.

[Foxy Freedom]

I honestly don’t think you fully understand the enormity of the chasm that your idea of ‘speciation’ is incapable of bridging. And, this is not an isolated observation made by just me and my so-called confirmation bias.

The enormity of the chasm is filled in by the enormity of time, but I think it is more important to discuss the causes of your confirmation bias, rather than simple stuff like science. I am sure that you will be intelligent enough to deal with the science yourself when the shackles of your indoctrination are no longer restraining your abilities.

I find the moral argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (contemporary version), Intelligent Design Theory, the Ontological Argument (still trying to really understand this one), and the historical reliability of the Bible to be among the most influential in my belief.

I find the Bible to be an exceptional, accurate, and convincing account of why the world and life exists.

Which one of these do you want refuted first? The reliability of the bible begins badly with two contradictory creation stories, neither agreeing with reality, and ends badly with two contradictory histories of Paul, in his letters, and in Acts. Not to mention that the reliability of the NT is totally undermined by the fact that many of the documents in the NT are either fakes or anonymous writings passed off as something they are not. That certainly does not inspire confidence in the honesty of the writers of the NT. There is a new thread on this subject if you are interested.

[SevenPatch]

This is a false dichotomy and is not how science works.

Your premise is : Either birds-from-dinosaurs is fact OR the ToE is not fact.  Your false dichotomy is rejected as there is a third option, birds-to-dinosaurs could be missing important evidence which falsifies the hypothesis while the ToE remains a considerably accurate description of how nature works and can be reasonably considered a fact.

You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if it is birds-from-dinosaurs or snakes-from-lizards or humans-from-apes, there are no factual cases of this type of transition. Yet, this type of transition is considered a “fact” by the ToE. In other words, we have unconfirmed hypothesis and no facts. Where are the facts to support the “fact” of the ToE?

You know, I can’t believe I missed this earlier.  No I didn’t miss your point, your point is bullshit based on bullshit.

What I missed is that you think humans evolved from apes.

No, humans did not evolve from apes.

Humans and Apes both evolved from a common ancestor that had both human and ape like features.  Let’s call this ancestor, ancestor A. 

So, two groups of ancestor A separated.  Group 1 of ancestor A went off into the fields while Group 2 of ancestor A stayed in the forrest/jungle and they stayed separated from each other.  Over millions of years, Group 1 of ancestor A evolved into humans while Group 2 of ancestor A evolved into apes.

The same is true of all your other examples:

Lizards didn’t evolve into snakes, a common ancestor had both snake and lizard features.  Two groups separated, one group evolved into snakes, another evolved into lizards.

This is what the Theory of Evolution says.  Not how you present it as if apes evolved into humans or lizards evolved into snakes.

Earlier you talked about a line in reality.  That is the problem, humans have a natural tendency to classify things.  It is one of the biggest reasons that taxonomy (and probably zoology) exists, humans want to classify things.  A problem occurs once you take in all the available evidence, those lines start to disappear.  Sure there are differences today between all of the different “species” but if you start looking into past history of these species you start to see that the past for different species intersect.

Why does the past for different species intersect?  If they are in fact different, and species can’t evolve into different species, then the pasts should not interest.  There should be no similarities.  But there are similarities, and the past history of all species intersect with each other. 


EDIT:  You see, this is what I mean BibleStudent.  We try to explain why or how you misunderstood science, but you dismiss our explaination with another misunderstanding.

I expect you'll dismiss this explaination of your misunderstanding with another misunderstanding.

[Foxy Freedom]

Orrorin's femur is "intermediate" between ancient apes and hominins, but not between modern apes and humans. Modern apes have evolved as much as humans from ancient apes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131204181252.htm

From the article, "we discovered that Orrorin's femur is surprisingly intermediate in both age and anatomy between quadrupedal Miocene apes and bipedal early human ancestors."

[nogodsforme]

BS is saying that babies never become adults because we cannot pinpoint the moments of change or explain the exact mechanism that makes the change happen. The change happens so very slowly that you can't see it happening in real time. That is why parents don't notice the daily changes in their kids, but friends and relatives freak out when they see the kids once or twice a year.

We can't tell when that cute chubby little girl became that annoying awkward teenager or when that teen became a poised young woman. We set years and developmental stages as the signposts for the changes we see.

The difference to people outside the family is as dramatic as the difference between a chimp and a human or a snake and a lizard, but nobody can pinpoint the exact moment the change happened. We can't tell exactly when one kind of primate or reptile species diverged into two. But we can look at fossils and DNA to get pretty close to when the changes happened, just like birthdays and discarded toys, clothes, hobbies etc, get us pretty close with the development of a child.[1]

Geological ages and fossil types form the evolutionary signposts. We can clearly see the similarities and differences. We can make up names for different types of animals based on the similarities and differences we observe. We can draw up charts and family trees that get re-labled and revised as we find more evidence. 

That is, we can document that the changes happened, but only after the fact.   There is no ultimate purpose to the process of evolution. Evolution happened and is still happening. That is why we have many millions of different species instead of just one kind of bacteria. It is just the way life is on the earth. And, no, we cannot identify the magical mechanism that causes evolution to occur, because there is no magical mechanism, force or power to identify.

Just like we can't really tell the moment when a baby becomes a toddler, a child, a teen, an adult and an old person--or what magical mechanism, force or power causes all those changes to happen the way they do. 

1.	I should trademark that: your kids' discarded toys are like the fossil record of their "evolutionary" development....TM

[BibleStudent]

The question is a complete non-sequitur.

I disagree.

I'm telling you how speciation and macroevolution are defined by the people who coined the terms - as labels for observed phenomena. If you want to continue with the erroneous line if questioning - questions that are not in need of answering for the sake of what speciation and macroevolution is, then ask them in the relevant context.

And I am telling you that your definition barely describes what evolution is. It would be like me making up a word and defining it as a 10-headed, 7-eyed, 12-legged fish living at the bottom of the sea. Having no evidence to demonstrate that this creature actually exists renders the word nothing more than an identifier for a fictional creature. That is why your definition barely has any meaning….because the part you claim it also means is, at this point, a fictional construct of your mind.

No, the definition I use is the definition that science uses.

Yes, you do, except science and fiction do not go together unless you are making a movie or writing a book. It’s a definition that has no basis in fact.

You, along with your misplaced hubris, are using a definition that has been made up by creationists in the attempt to muddy the waters. If you continue to do this and ignore the definition science uses, then no ground can be made from your dishonesty.

Yes, but my definition more accurately describes what evolution is alleged to do.

Also, nowhere have I tried to make a case for snakes evolving from lizards. This is your monster, it's your shotgun approach at punching a hole in evolution. I couldn't give a toss about this point. All I am doing here is explaining to you what speciation and macroevolution is according to science. It doesn't have to take on the unobservable lizards to snakes shit you keep harping on about, because there are observable cases of speciation that show macroevolution as fact.

What do your examples demonstrate?....that a bird evolved from another bird or that a plant evolved from another plant?

The word ‘macro’ is defined as being “very large in scale, scope, or capability.” If you feel that one plant evolving from another plant is a ‘very large’ evolutionary event and that it is on par with a bird evolving from a dinosaur, then it would seem that you are subscribing to the definition you are for the purpose of being a conformist.

It is superficial to those who actually work in the fields that involve evolutionary theory. It's a total non-issue because they are terms coined to label observed phenomena.

What phenomenon are you referring to?...because I know you are not referring to large scale macroevolutionary changes.

The only ones who are getting all prissy over it are those who have taken the terms, twisted them to mean something else and then built up a straw man to knock down evolution. Unfortunately, you have fallen for this bullshit, yet you seem quite happy about it. Perhaps that's because it fits in with your pre-existing beliefs that are too cherishable to be quashed. Shame.

A definition for a word that is used to describe an existing process that cannot be scientifically confirmed is not a very ‘scientific’ word.

[ParkingPlaces]

BibleStudent

What are your qualifications for calling science that you don't like wrong? What are your qualifications for deciding that evolution is impossible? What knowledge source to you have the takes precedence over the specific scientific discoveries that you think are bullish*t? Where did you get this superior training of yours? What degrees in whatever education you have are the non-scientific equivalent of a PhD?

And why is your only argument that it is impossible and that no mechanism for such changes is possible limited only to saying those words and not including a)useful explanations and b)something loosely describable as verification, or at least evidence.

Your opinion will never count for much if that is all you have. And if your opinion is merely based on ID claims that ID'ers can't back up with anything but bluster, then that doesn't work either.

You are articulate in the sense that you can write (better than me, at least). But you don't seem to be able to say much, outside of parroting either the words or the non-thoughts of ID proponents who can only come up with a few examples and that have to ignore actual evidence to do so.

I understand that a evolution is a difficult pill for you to swallow, because it contradicts the specific version of christianity (I assume) you have chosen to follow. Heck, there are things in the past that I wish hadn't happened too, though mine are limited to things like WWII and the Edsel. But standing here in the 21st century and proclaiming that the last few hundred million years went the way you wanted them to rather than the way evidence of all kinds say they went is not one of the three most useful things you can do with your life.

We flat out think you're wrong, and you are completely unable to provide anything even remotely looking like viable evidence to the contrary. Your most notable talent is repeating yourself, but your gift for doing that ad naseum is not likely to get you an audition on "America's Got Liars", but only because you would bore Simon with your prattling.

Either you have something to show us beyond your opinion and easy to dismiss ID claims, or you only have a keyboard and nothing to say. Which you have already confirmed with your 1500+ posts. Most of us think you are POE, here to tease and hassle, because it is difficult to imagine that anyone merely set in their ways as you are would put up with total rejection for so long.

It isn't normal. It isn't healthy. And if there is a god, I'm pretty sure he doesn't hand out bonus points to those that are an ass for their lord.

And since there isn't a god, you have even fewer reasons for doing this.

Evolution did happen. The mechanism is there. It will continue to happen. And the fact that it forgot to induce change in organisms to your standards doesn't change any of that. If you want to spend the rest of your life bragging about how wrong you are, go right ahead. We'll be glad to mention it daily. Just make sure you don't go out in public with a surprised look on your face or you'll be laughed off the planet. Being here is your choice, and I and others will constantly remind you that you are being an idiot. That doesn't mean that you are an idiot. Just that you are being one.

And I have no idea why.

[shnozzola]

Read this...it's not a long read and definitely thought provoking:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1113The

Bible Student,
   It is an interesting article, but when I find sentences that end like this:

"....... because the circulatory system is irreducibly complex," it makes me glad that you are continuing to pursue this evolution / creation debate.  The following paragraph is also from your article:

Given all this, there are 3 basic ways to make a heart found in animals: a 2 chambered heart, a 3 chambered heart, and a 4 chambered heart. Fish have 2 chambers, one atrium and one ventricle. Amphibians and reptiles have 3 chambers: 2 atria and a ventricle. Crocodiles are the one reptilian exception, as they have 4 chambers (2 atria, 2 ventricles). Birds and mammals have 4 chambers (2 atria and 2 ventricles).

I must say, Bible Student, for myself, just that simple look at the heart leads me to think evolution.  For a creationist, I wonder about the steps, the details a god would have gone through........just this idea ends any kind of creationist view for me.  Actually, this look at the heart ties together some of the idea of macroevolution over a wide group of species from worm to man.

Then I found this:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/heart_evolution.htm  (this page has difficulty loading for some reason)

The simplest kinds of hearts, present in some invertebrates such as some types of worms, consist of a muscular tube which squeezes rhythmically and moves blood-like liquid by peristaltic contraction (in sea squirts such heart can actually pump blood several minutes in one direction and then reverse the flow into the opposite direction). On the other hand, some mollusk hearts have quite a complex structure, which may include four atria and one ventricle(Nautilus), or be composed from multiple (seven and more) individual hearts as in annelid worms. Such diversity in the structure and number of invertebrate hearts can be explained by the relatively small size and low metabolic activity of these animals as well by the fact that the role of invertebrate circulatory system is not necessarily respiratory exchange, but rather nutrient transport (which does not require as rigid and systematic circulation as does respiratory exchange).

In vertebrates, however, one of the primary roles of the circulatory system is transporting oxygen to the cells and a certain generalization about circulation in the different phyla and stages of evolution of the heart are possible. As a result, we can follow the heart as it develops from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals.

This below is also interesting but starts with a frog, not back to the worm circulation.
http://www.livescience.com/7877-understanding-heart-evolution.html



You may not like this, but your evolution threads make it easier to understand the steps and why no kind of creator is necessary - I wish you could appreciate how exciting pure evolution is.

edit: spelling

[Ataraxia]

And I am telling you that your definition barely describes what evolution is.

Do you actually read what people have said or just run with the idea in your head? This is yet another straw man as I am not trying to describe what evolution is, but what macroevolution is, which is evolution at the level of speciation and above.

It would be like me making up a word and defining it as a 10-headed, 7-eyed, 12-legged fish living at the bottom of the sea. Having no evidence to demonstrate that this creature actually exists renders the word nothing more than an identifier for a fictional creature.

You could've just said god.

That is why your definition barely has any meaning….because the part you claim it also means is, at this point, a fictional construct of your mind.

Then the scientists and theories that use this definition must also be fictional constructs of my mind. You see, this isn't my definition, it is the definition. You have latched on to the part which looks at long time scales and ignored the bonafide definition which explicitly states that macroevolution deals with evolution at the level of speciation. Speciation does not necessarily take a long time, relatively speaking, as it has been observed.

Yes, you do, except science and fiction do not go together unless you are making a movie or writing a book. It’s a definition that has no basis in fact.

Really, a sarcy lecture from you on what is science and what is fiction is head shakingly laughable.

The definition is based on an observable fact. Are these all manifestations of my mind too? Sheesh, perhaps solipsism is true after all....

Yes, but my definition more accurately describes what evolution is alleged to do.

"Your" definition picks up on a smidgen of what macroevolution means and ignores the meat of it. It's almost as if you're only picking a piece of it to fit your argument....

What do your examples demonstrate?....that a bird evolved from another bird or that a plant evolved from another plant?

Well, duh, of course that's what they demonstrate! Birds evolve from birds, and plants evolve from plants. If there was a case where this didn't happen, it would falsify evolutionary theory! If we observe a new species of bird evolve from another species of bird, then we have observed speciation. At this level, we call it macroevolution. Don't like it? Tough.

The word ‘macro’ is defined as being “very large in scale, scope, or capability.” If you feel that one plant evolving from another plant is a ‘very large’ evolutionary event and that it is on par with a bird evolving from a dinosaur, then it would seem that you are subscribing to the definition you are for the purpose of being a conformist.

It doesn't need to be very large, it just needs to be a speciation event! This has nothing to do with being a conformist. It's strictly about using terms for the purpose for which they were coined.

What phenomenon are you referring to?...because I know you are not referring to large scale macroevolutionary changes.

They don't have to be ffs. They only need to be at the level of speciation. How many times does this need explaining before you get it?

A definition for a word that is used to describe an existing process that cannot be scientifically confirmed is not a very ‘scientific’ word.

I can't help you with your inability to view observed cases of speciation. Your denial and ignorance is unfortunately down to you to rectify.

[SevenPatch]

What do your examples demonstrate?....that a bird evolved from another bird or that a plant evolved from another plant?

Well, duh, of course that's what they demonstrate! Birds evolve from birds, and plants evolve from plants. If there was a case where this didn't happen, it would falsify evolutionary theory! If we observe a new species of bird evolve from another species of bird, then we have observed speciation. At this level, we call it macroevolution. Don't like it? Tough.

He literally expects a crocoduck to happen.

He expects chimps to literally evolve into humans.

He is the guy who asks "why don't we see monkeys evolve into humans" or "if a humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes".

[BibleStudent]

Do you actually read what people have said or just run with the idea in your head? This is yet another straw man as I am not trying to describe what evolution is, but what macroevolution is, which is evolution at the level of speciation and above.

Do you actually comprehend what you are reading? If you are describing what macroevolution is, then you are describing evolution. Remove maroevolution and you have no evolution. Where do you come up with this stuff?

It would be like me making up a word and defining it as a 10-headed, 7-eyed, 12-legged fish living at the bottom of the sea. Having no evidence to demonstrate that this creature actually exists renders the word nothing more than an identifier for a fictional creature.

You could've just said god.

Nice non-response.

Then the scientists and theories that use this definition must also be fictional constructs of my mind. You see, this isn't my definition, it is the definition. You have latched on to the part which looks at long time scales and ignored the bonafide definition which explicitly states that macroevolution deals with evolution at the level of speciation. Speciation does not necessarily take a long time, relatively speaking, as it has been observed.

So, what you are suggesting then is that we just infer that these smaller changes can 'build up' into the larger structural and systemic changes that allegedly occurr??....absent the ability to observe these changes or even identify a biological pathway? Your defifinition is weighed down in conjecture and it cleverly covers up to the non-scientifc aspects of the theory.

Really, a sarcy lecture from you on what is science and what is fiction is head shakingly laughable.

It's pretty common for people to laugh and shake their head when they are unable to respond to what is glaringly obvious.

The definition is based on an observable fact. Are these all manifestations of my mind too? Sheesh, perhaps solipsism is true after all....

I think you are posting from Uranus again. You have observed evolution producing new large scale biological changes? Now you are just being outright dishonest.

"Your" definition picks up on a smidgen of what macroevolution means and ignores the meat of it. It's almost as if you're only picking a piece of it to fit your argument....

Actually, your comments are much more descriptive of the definition you embrace than they are of the definition I use.

Instead of hiding behind the vague scientific definition you claim to be adequate, why don't you just provide me with one scientifically confirmed example that demonstrates how an evolutionary mechanism produces complex biological systems. This conversation would probably end.

What do your examples demonstrate?....that a bird evolved from another bird or that a plant evolved from another plant?

Well, duh, of course that's what they demonstrate! Birds evolve from birds, and plants evolve from plants. If there was a case where this didn't happen, it would falsify evolutionary theory! If we observe a new species of bird evolve from another species of bird, then we have observed speciation. At this level, we call it macroevolution. Don't like it? Tough.

See, there you go again....thinking that a bird from a bird is all your required to demonstrate in order for your definition to be scientifically valid. And you accuse me of being dishonest?

It doesn't need to be very large, it just needs to be a speciation event! This has nothing to do with being a conformist. It's strictly about using terms for the purpose for which they were coined.

You are only deceiving yourself. You know darn well what I am getting at when challenging this definition of yours. Only a conformist would play this game.

They don't have to be ffs. They only need to be at the level of speciation. How many times does this need explaining before you get it?

How sad that someone could actually be this gullible.

I can't help you with your inability to view observed cases of speciation. Your denial and ignorance is unfortunately down to you to rectify.

I am not the one who needs help.

[BibleStudent]

You may not like this, but your evolution threads make it easier to understand the steps and why no kind of creator is necessary - I wish you could appreciate how exciting pure evolution is.

I don't like it but only because it is disturbing to see someone buying into the unscientific nature of the ToE. I am not here to coax individuals out of a belief, though, so I wish you the best. It just so happens that, as I've mentioned before, the more I learn the more confident I become in my beliefs which is the opposite direction you seem headed in. Interesting.

[BibleStudent]

BibleStudent

What are your qualifications for calling science that you don't like wrong? What are your qualifications for deciding that evolution is impossible? What knowledge source to you have the takes precedence over the specific scientific discoveries that you think are bullish*t? Where did you get this superior training of yours? What degrees in whatever education you have are the non-scientific equivalent of a PhD?

You would probably get a better answer to your question by asking one of the scientists who share my beliefs. Admittedly, they are more qualified than I am. What do you think they would say?

You are articulate in the sense that you can write (better than me, at least). But you don't seem to be able to say much, outside of parroting either the words or the non-thoughts of ID proponents who can only come up with a few examples and that have to ignore actual evidence to do so.

Thank you for your kind words.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your assessment that ID and creationists are ignoring actual evidence. In fact, quite frankly, it would be more accurate to say that the proponents of the ToE are ignoring evidence and attepting to make pieces fit that just don't fit.

I understand that a evolution is a difficult pill for you to swallow, because it contradicts the specific version of christianity (I assume) you have chosen to follow.

The truth doesn't scare me and if evidence was produced that somehow drove a wedge in my beliefs, I am prepared for that. The problem is, there are questions I have asked that no one can seem to answer. What I get are condascending remarks about having a bias and being ignorant, dishonest, and misunderstanding science, etc. That kind of stuff doesn't help and it only leads me to believe that there are no real answers....just guesses, hopes, and speculation.

[Foxy Freedom]

You would probably get a better answer to your question by asking one of the scientists who share my beliefs. Admittedly, they are more qualified than I am. What do you think they would say?

Beliefs are not science.

Your statements are not credible.