Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #696 on: August 13, 2014, 08:58:05 PM »
Some other things to think about, amigo.

Unlike god beliefs, these evidences of evolution, these acceptances, don't vary from region to region, from country to country.  There's a reason for that, and it's because these findings are scientifically verifiable. The Muslim scientist in Turkey accepts the exact same evidence, and come to the same conclusions as the Hindi in India, because science.

Which leads me to my next point. You do realize that a great many of these scientists have been religious, dont you? Even Christian! But the evidence they find is too overwhelming to dismiss.

Now, you might say they weren't True Christians, and perhaps you're right. Maybe it's only True Christians that can dismiss the preponderance of evidence.

Lastly, here's yet another reason to accept what science claims about evolution; Science doesn't lie. It can't. Sure, scientists can, but they will be exposed eventually. Google "stem cells in Japan" to see for yourself.

No, science has no need to lie. If science doesnt know something, it says so. How  did life start? Dunno. What is dark matter? Dunno. What happens inside a black hole? Dunno. How did the diversity of life come about? Evolution!

 There's nothing shameful about using new evidence, learning, to grow your knowledge. I see it as a source of pride when it happens to me.

It's time to change your worldview, my man. Step into the 21st century.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #697 on: August 13, 2014, 08:58:24 PM »
Exactly. Macro-evolution is an hypothesis. There is no science to support it. Microevo+microevo=macroevo is an assumption based on affirming the consequent fallacy.

BibleStudent -

Again, if you want experimental validation that micro + ... + micro = macro, then by all means, pick some random whatever, do a bunch of micro changes to that whatever, and note if you see a macro change.

Okay. Can those micro changes include a loss of function or information?

Quote
It could very well be that self-replicating biological systems are subject to some phenomenon or mechanism that puts inherent limits on the degree of change that can be seen from ancestor 1 to ancestor 93,457,901,243,875.  But you need to explain what that phenomenon or mechanism is, because, as regular observation of reality has shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again and again and again, small changes that accumulate results in a big net change.

If you could relate this to something that did not have an intelligent source at the helm directing the process then your analogy might begin to make some sense. Biological systems, according to evolution theory, are absent an instruction manual and a much different animal than the whatevers I think you are referring to. If you think I am incorrect then please explain why.

Quote
I'm going to go ask a question I asked you earlier in this thread in a slightly different way:
Is there any kind of a macroscopic change that you can think of in all of observable reality such that the mechanism for realizing that change does not involve the accumulation of microscopic changes?  You answered 'no'[1], which is the same answer I'd have.  Now, one very good explanation for why you can't come up with an example of a macroscopic change that is not the result of accumulated microscopic changes is because the only difference between macro and micro is scale.  A macroscopic change simply is the accumulation of microscopic changes.
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg628381.html#msg628381

I know you don't mean it this way but, to me, this trivializes the enormously complex and seemingly improbable process that would be involved in evolution. I realize that most here don't believe this when I say it but I have made a genuine and persistent effort to find a good reason to accept what you are saying.

Years and years of study and research and testing and milions upon millions of dollars  involving thousands of individuals with enormous knowledge and skills, by and large, we are virtually clueless as to how this magnificent phenomenon occurred. From what I've learned, it just didn't happen.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #698 on: August 13, 2014, 09:09:47 PM »
Some other things to think about, amigo.

Unlike god beliefs, these evidences of evolution, these acceptances, don't vary from region to region, from country to country.  There's a reason for that, and it's because these findings are scientifically verifiable. The Muslim scientist in Turkey accepts the exact same evidence, and come to the same conclusions as the Hindi in India, because science.

Which leads me to my next point. You do realize that a great many of these scientists have been religious, dont you? Even Christian! But the evidence they find is too overwhelming to dismiss.

Now, you might say they weren't True Christians, and perhaps you're right. Maybe it's only True Christians that can dismiss the preponderance of evidence.

Okay. Good points...but how do you explain the people who have gone in the opposite direction and denounced many/most/all of the claims made about the process of evolution?

Quote
Lastly, here's yet another reason to accept what science claims about evolution; Science doesn't lie. It can't. Sure, scientists can, but they will be exposed eventually. Google "stem cells in Japan" to see for yourself.

No, science has no need to lie. If science doesnt know something, it says so. How  did life start? Dunno. What is dark matter? Dunno. What happens inside a black hole? Dunno. How did the diversity of life come about? Evolution!

 There's nothing shameful about using new evidence, learning, to grow your knowledge. I see it as a source of pride when it happens to me.

It's time to change your worldview, my man. Step into the 21st century.

I read an article recently that reported on the increase in peer reviewed papers that are being recalled/retracted as a result of innaccurate and dishonest information. It was a good article....and, no, I wasn't sitting there going "see, that's why people shouldn't accept this evolution thing." I don't recall who wrote it and if it is was wriitten to discredit science in some way but it came across as a pretty neutral reporting of the facts.

Anyway, your points are noted.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #699 on: August 13, 2014, 09:21:14 PM »
I wrote several posts over the past two days that you have effectively ignored, BibleStudent.  If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to act like it, and that means responding to what I actually write, not quoting a sentence or two and then going off on a totally unrelated tangent.  I am providing a list of these posts, and I expect meaningful replies to them.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg628944.html#msg628944
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629003.html#msg629003
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629126.html#msg629126
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629146.html#msg629146

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #700 on: August 13, 2014, 09:32:50 PM »
I wrote several posts over the past two days that you have effectively ignored, BibleStudent.  If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to act like it, and that means responding to what I actually write, not quoting a sentence or two and then going off on a totally unrelated tangent.  I am providing a list of these posts, and I expect meaningful replies to them.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg628944.html#msg628944
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629003.html#msg629003
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629126.html#msg629126
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629146.html#msg629146

Okay. Will do.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #701 on: August 13, 2014, 10:01:18 PM »
The problem is this, BibleStudent. You keep voicing the same questions over and over (how could macroevolution occur, we've never observed it happening) and that gets old. If you're gonna get old (and believe me, you have no choice in the matter), you might as well also be honest. So from now on, after reading the posts of others, just cut and paste the following:

"Sorry, but that can't be true because I don't like it."

Which is what you've said from day one anyway.

See how easy that is? We won't be able to accuse you of lying or anything. Your newfound honesty and integrity will be refreshing.

You're welcome.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2127
  • Darwins +252/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #702 on: August 13, 2014, 10:51:57 PM »
Okay. Can those micro changes include a loss of function or information?

I'll give this one a go...

The answer to your question is absolutely. 

Let me try to explain how this process works on a nuts and bolts level BS and maybe it will become a little clearer.  If I make a mistake anywhere, please someone else fill in for me because all of this is from memory and its been a while.

DNA consists of 4 different nucleotides strung together in a long chain.  We label them A, T, C and G for short, but they all have scientific names.  A bonds with T, and C bonds with G.  This is all there are.  No more, no less.  Every living thing on earth... Just 4.  Every single amino acid, (and subsequently proteins) made by a cell is coded for by these little old nucleotides.  Really not as 'extremely complex' as you think. 

What DNA does is give a sort of blueprint for the manufacture of amino acids and proteins.  All sorts of different proteins with all sorts of shapes, sizes and proportions.  But strangely enough, only about 5% of DNA actually codes for making proteins.  The other 95%, which was previously called 'junk DNA' actually has a very significant purpose, in that it tells the cell when to stop, start, and continue making these proteins. 

So what you may have is a string like this...  A-C-C-G-A-T-A-C and on the other side of the double helix you have T-G-G-C-T-A-T-C to match.  Now, suppose this combination (and remember, we are talking about a shit load more than just these 8 base pairs in a single strand of DNA coding for literally every protein your cells make) coded for the cells to make an amino acid / protein that was hard to the touch but also shaped and configured in such a way (combined with the surrounding cells which are also doing the same thing) as to give a finch a straight beak.

There are several ways in which a random mutation can jump in and make a problem or improvement here.  First of all, you can lose a base pair (in your words, maybe a loss of information). So let's say you lose the first C-G combination.  Now you've got A-C-G-A-T-A-C combined with T-G-C-T-A-T-C.  This new set up might code for a slightly softer protein.  Or say, a slightly harder one.  Or a shorter one.  Or maybe one that (when combined with the thousands and thousands of others nearby) hooked at the end instead of straight.  Depending on whether this was a positive or a negative thing for the finch, this slight change may give the finch an edge that others of it's kind don't have, thus making it more likely to breed and pass on this new mutation of curved, hard, or soft beaks (whichever works best in the environment the finch is in).  The exact same process starts again in the next finch.  And the next, and the next, and the next.       

Another way to have an impact is to ADD a base pair in the middle.  So instead of just having 8, you have 9 pairs (an increase in information), and that makes something a little different too.  You can also get wholesale additions and deletions of larger groups of base pairs on occasion, but these are usually (but not always!) detrimental to the individual.  On super rare occasions, however, it is possible that large additions or deletions can have an overwhelmingly positive effect and significant changes can occur to the individual. 

A good analogy is to think of it like words...  Take the following sentence.  'I love going to my job every day'. 

Now, let's add a single letter (much like a random mutation might add or delete a base pair) and see if it changes anything.  'I love going too my job every day'.  Slightly different, but not overwhelmingly positive or negative to add it in.  It changes the meaning slightly but doesn't destroy the totality of the sentence.  In essence, a neutral mutation. Now let's take out a letter.  'I love gong to my job every day'  This is a little more traumatic.  You changed going to gong and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense now.  You can still read it but it might take you a minute to see what the problem is.  Lets call that a negative mutation. Now lets add a whole section of letters and see what happens.  'I love going to my job every FRIday'.  The entire meaning of the sentence is changed now in a way that works better and seems to fit better with the world we live in (most people don't like going to work, but Friday is the best day).  Let's call that a positive change.   

If you could relate this to something that did not have an intelligent source at the helm directing the process then your analogy might begin to make some sense.  Biological systems, according to evolution theory, are absent an instruction manual and a much different animal than the whatevers I think you are referring to.

In my above description, the source at the helm directing the changes is nothing more than random mutations that occur in the copying process, coupled with heredity, death, and reproduction.  You are correct that biological systems do not require an instruction manual.  It piles on information from nothing more than random base pair changes that just so happen to be good, bad or neutral for the organism.  The ones that are bad cause a disadvantage in survival (and breeding) for the individual born with them (so they won't be passed on), and the ones that just so happen to be good give an advantage in survival (and breeding) and are passed on. 

Do you really not see how you can get changes to an organism with this process without an intelligent source at the helm?  Where in the process do you see the need for an intelligent source?  The process simply doesn't need it. 

I know you don't mean it this way but, to me, this trivializes the enormously complex and seemingly improbable process that would be involved in evolution. I realize that most here don't believe this when I say it but I have made a genuine and persistent effort to find a good reason to accept what you are saying.

The missing piece for you is probably the time scale.  Most of the time, evolution takes a LONG time to see large changes.  But we can observe changes in species any time we want.  All we have to do is look at dog breeding to see the changes take place.  You can breed significant changes in dog traits over relatively short periods of time.  Easily within one persons 80 year life span.  Now consider changes over millions of years.  Just think of it... more than 10,000 TIMES as long as the average person lives? And you don't think you can go from say... zebra to horse over a few million year timescale?  Please man, be serious.  If we can go from wolf to chihuahua and Great Dane in just a few hundred years, you REALLY don't think species changes can happen in a million years?

You have to tell us where the process breaks down for you. 
Years and years of study and research and testing and milions upon millions of dollars  involving thousands of individuals with enormous knowledge and skills, by and large, we are virtually clueless as to how this magnificent phenomenon occurred.

No.  That's not true.  The picture has some holes but we are certainly not clueless.  We don't know how it started, that is true, but once it got going, we kow quite a lot.  The first organism might have started with just a few simple proteins for all we know.  It was billions of years ago and occurred on a scale so small as to leave no trace of it's origins.  All you need is a cell that can copy itself with just a few simple proteins, and slowly, slowly, slowly adding a base pair here, taking one out there, adding large chunks over here, and 3 billion (BILLION) years later, we have the diversity of life we have. 

We don't know how it started, but we sure as hell know that evolution is the best theory as to how it's moving forward. 

From what I've learned, it just didn't happen.

Which part?  Be specific.  Which part doesn't happen?  Do we not pass down genes from parent to offspring?  Do we not have random mutations?  Do some individuals not die before reproducing?  Is it impossible for lots of small changes to add up to large changes?  You can't just sit behind your computer shaking your head saying... 'I just don't see how it can happen; there's no fucking way'.  YES fucking way.  It happens.   
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #703 on: August 14, 2014, 04:21:51 AM »
Before anyone answers BS's question, he will address my point above:

At this point it would be really helpful if you were to explain how your theory is superior to The Theory of Evolution. (Answers involving magic will not be counted.)

Yours GB Mod.


I have not indicated in this thread that my theory was "superior" to the Theory of Evolution. Why are you introducing this Red Herring into the discussion?
Then it is inferior, and yet it is your preferred explanation and you would teach children that creationism is (i) some sort of explanation, (ii) magic is real.

Why is this?

So, it's inferior simply because I did not claim it to be superior? That makes a lot of sense.
I am not sure how you misunderstood. The argument is:
 
(i) You must admit that the ToE does not involve magic.
(ii) Any explanation that involves magic must be inferior to one that does not involve magic.
Thus
Creationism is inferior to the ToE.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #704 on: August 14, 2014, 04:33:40 AM »
To bring the debate back to the original observation;
BibleStudent, is it your view that in science classes, students should be taught that the universe was brought into existence by a magical invisible being, who used magic to magic all planets and stars into existence, then magicked people and unicorns into existence, then magicked a flood to kill all the people he didn't like because another magical nasty being had persuaded someone to eat a bit of fruit? And all of this without one shred of evidence?

Or should school science classes stick with what science actually is; a method to observe and explain reality?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #705 on: August 14, 2014, 05:59:25 AM »
Hello, BibleStudent:

I'm not sure whether you're uninformed or just trolling, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that it's the former.  Several people here have spoken to you about what you refer to as your "so-called ignorance".  It is not so-called; your lack of information and education about evolution is painfully clear.  I note, for example, that you routinely refer to evolution as something that "happened".  Past tense.  Evolution is not something that happened.  It is still taking place today.  This, all by itself, indicates that you know very little about the topic.  It would be like calling yourself an expert on World War II and saying that you hope Hitler will be defeated by the end of the year.

So when people point out that you don't know much about evolution, they're -- well, they're right, to put it bluntly.  But you should not take it personally.  Everyone is uninformed about quite a few topics.  This one is just one of yours.  However, having had it pointed out to you, more than once, it's now time for you to simply admit that you need to learn more and stop trying to claim that you are well-informed on the subject.  Please participate in the thread accordingly.  Thank you.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #706 on: August 14, 2014, 06:05:17 AM »
I think many of the problems that jaimehlers is experiencing stems from the following post.
Where in this thread have I said that macroevolution is false? I am simply challenging any assertion that evolution is proven or that the entirety of the ToE is 'scientific' in nature. By what means or criteria does macroevolution become 'scientific? Is it by consensus? Is it because Joe "the ToE" Evolution says so? By what authority can someone claim the entirety of the ToE is scientific?

You just admitted that all claims of soup-to-humans is unscientific. There is no known pathway and no known mechanism so you are left with a form of deduction based on observation which cannot be supported by the scientific method.
Quote
I don't think it's possible to provide a "soup to humans" pathway, for the reasons cited above.  That lack does not make evolutionary theory wrong, or even certain aspects of evolutionary theory wrong,

I never said it was wrong !!! I said it was unscientific.
The word that is causing difficulty is “unscientific.”

Now if “scientific” = associated with science, then unscientific must mean “not associated with science.”

However, and this may seem like circular reasoning, but it is not, something becomes “scientific” when its premises are supported by rigorous investigation, critical thinking based upon a solid foundation and steps of logic that can be seen, demonstrated and can withstand intense criticism.

Anything Biblical does not have this quality as it is entirely dependent upon the existence of a being capable of magic.

At a base level (i.e. up to age c. 15 years) all science teaching has the primary aim of teaching critical thinking: it is only the secondary aim in which this thinking is used to deduce conclusions.

If we think of the formula for a chemical reaction: Zn2 + H2SO4 = Zn(SO4)2 + H2, this can be understood on various levels, but ultimately it depends upon the understanding of quarks, which we do not fully understand and for whose existence we have to make some assumptions.

However, nobody is going to say that Zn2 + H2SO4 = Zn(SO4)2 + H2 is “unscientific.”

The idea of making assumptions does not render anything “unscientific”. Let us assume that I give you two identical empty, small wooden boxes that you can open and examine. One box is red, the other is blue. I then take them away for a short time and return them to you but now they are locked shut. You examine them again and find the blue one to be far heavier than the red one. What are your thoughts?

I suggest the following:
1.   I have put something heavy in the blue box.
2.   I have put something very buoyant in the red box.
3.   I have done both 1 & 2
4.   You were mistaken in the first instance and the blue one was much heavier
5.   I have deceived you and substituted the blue/red box with a heavier/lighter box.
6.   The wood of the blue one has, in the short time I was away, unaccountably changed its density drastically.
7.   There has been interference to the blue box by a supernatural being.

I go away and then return and give you the boxes again. You weight them: they are, in fact, exactly the same weight. So you discount 4. You lock them and return them to me.

I go away with the locked boxes and return. The blue box is heavier by 8oz – the red box is the same weight as it had been.

You now have reasons 1, 3, 5, 6 & 7 left to which you can add that you have suddenly realised that  I have a key to both of the boxes because earlier I had returned the boxes in a locked condition.

I go away and return with two open boxes of equal weight. You take my keys away. Thereafter, no matter how many times I go away and return with the boxes, they remain the same weight.

Your conclusion is 1. It is true that 6 and 7 might have happened but, applying Occam’s Razor, you realise that you need not investigate either of these unless something happens to disturb your conclusion.

The point is that science is using the ability to think critically, an attribute that children and people in general should be taught, for this is how we progress.

Conclusion:
The ToE is the best we have. It is supported by critical thinking and mounds of conclusions drawn from observation.

Creationism is simply magic, it explains nothing, and encourages us to stop thinking and accept our ignorance. And that is why it should not be taught as if it were a real explanation of anything.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 06:07:19 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #707 on: August 14, 2014, 07:33:48 AM »
Now, you might say they weren't True Christians, and perhaps you're right. Maybe it's only True Christians that can dismiss the preponderance of evidence.

Okay. Good points...but how do you explain the people who have gone in the opposite direction and denounced many/most/all of the claims made about the process of evolution?

I thought I just did, even before you asked. But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the vast majority of the people who have gone in the opposite direction are so hard core YECers that they cannot, will not, accept the science that flies in the face of their beliefs. And, I've yet to encounter a denouncer who was, in fact, a schooled scientist in a related field. Think about it, have you seen any? We don't see paleontologists, or geologists, or geneticists, or biologists claiming that the ToE is wrong. All the denouncers I've ever seen are not scientists in that field of study. There's a reason for that.

It's because the scientific evidence that evolution occurs is overwhelming.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2343
  • Darwins +438/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #708 on: August 14, 2014, 11:05:35 AM »
JeffPT has done a better job at responding to this than I could have hoped to, but I do want to give you my take.

Okay. Can those micro changes include a loss of function or information?
Yes.  I wonder - did you think that my answer to this would have been no?

Quote
If you could relate this to something that did not have an intelligent source at the helm directing the process then your analogy might begin to make some sense. Biological systems, according to evolution theory, are absent an instruction manual and a much different animal than the whatevers I think you are referring to. If you think I am incorrect then please explain why.
The process of evolution doesn't necessarily require a lack of intelligence, nor does it necessarily require an intelligence to be present.  All that is required is some manner of introducing change (method of change) and some manner of exerting selection pressure (method of selection).  Insofar as a method of change is concerned, these methods can be imperfect reproduction fits the fill just fine, but it could also be accomplished via intentional genetic tinkering.  Insofar as method of selection is concerned, these methods can be things like predatory environment, weather that is either more or less conducive to survival, availability of energy resources, types of materials that are suitable for energy use, etc., but it could also be accomplished via intentional breeding (i.e. bananas, dogs).  We actually have a term fro that method of selection - artificial selection.

But - you want an example of micro + ... + micro = macro that does not incorporate an intelligent entity dictating the changes or the selection pressures.  I hereby give you geography.  Examples include the present arrangement of continents due to the unguided accumulation of the effects of plate tectonics, the creating of complex river systems due to the unguided accumulation of erosive effects, canyons of a Grand nature due to the unguided accumulation of erosive effects, mountain ranges due to the unguided accumulation of small rocks and shifting plates.

Huh...timescale issues again.  I can't point you to video that goes from 'no Mt. Everest' to 'there be Mt. Everest'.  Those processes take a long time...and I think you're a young Earth creationist, so you may not buy the whole 'geology as a science' thing either, though you can directly witness (via satellite images) the formation of complex river channels in large structures of ice as the seasons change.  I guess - do you also reject geology as unscientific?  Or at least plate tectonics?

Quote
I know you don't mean it this way but, to me, this trivializes the enormously complex and seemingly improbable process that would be involved in evolution. I realize that most here don't believe this when I say it but I have made a genuine and persistent effort to find a good reason to accept what you are saying.
How improbable are we talking here exactly?  How probably do you think it is for a random number generator to produce the number '7' if it's range of values is 1 to 1,000,000,000?  1 in a billion, right?  If you ran that number generator once a day, for the next 1 billion years, what is the probability that you will have gotten at least one '7' after that?  What if, at each day, when the result was an even number, you got to exert the selection pressure of discarding that result and rolling again?

And I don't think I'm trivializing the enormous complexity of the evolutionary process.  I could list out the rules of chess here, and it would look rather simple and trivial, but the actual process of the game is hugely complex.  Just because the basic transistor is fairly simple and trivial doesn't mean the successive addition of several billion of them makes the Core i7-2700k processor trivial.

Understand that I do believe that you are making a genuine and persistent effort to find a good reason to accept what we're saying.  However, I do not believe you are making a good effort.

Quote
Years and years of study and research and testing and milions upon millions of dollars  involving thousands of individuals with enormous knowledge and skills, by and large, we are virtually clueless as to how this magnificent phenomenon occurred. From what I've learned, it just didn't happen.
Honestly - I think this is simply a function of you needing to learn more.  I think JeffPT also spells out quite well why the claim that 'we are virtually clueless' is simply incorrect.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #709 on: August 14, 2014, 12:38:27 PM »
I think the problem for you, BS, lies in scientists naming things. I have come across many creationists that are unable to see through man-made names.

Take the ancestor of the horse, the dog sized Eohippus. Maybe call it 'Horse V1.0'. As Horse V1.0 reproduced there were small changes between the parent and child, in the same way you are not an exact replica of your father. Perhaps you're a bit shorter or taller than him? But not exactly the same. So there became many Horse V1.01s and Horse V1.011s and Horse V1.012s, and, well, you get the idea. Perhaps Horse V1.012 was a bit taller, when food was scare it could just reach leaves on trees? Maybe Horse V1.012 survived drought whereas Horse V1.01 and Horse V1.011 couldn't? Eventually only Horse V1.012's were left, different enough from Horse V1.0 that we can maybe call them Horse V1.2. Horse V1.0 and Horse V1.2 can still mate, as an Alsation and a Poodle can.

But you carry this on for long enough, through Horse V1.2, Horse V1.3, Horse V1.4, etc, eventually the differences are enough that WE as people rename the descendants of Horse V1.0 to Horse V2.0. Now Horse V2.0 can still mate with Horse V1.9, and Horse V1.8, and Horse V1.7, maybe occasionally some Horse V1.65's. But not Horse V1.0. because the build up of genetic mutations leave them unable to conceive. This why occasionally sheep and goats can have a successful offspring (this is not the result of 'sin').

Can you see that now WE as people can see enough of a difference to rename Horse V1.0 to Horse V2.0? Can you also see that Horse V1.0 did not give birth to Horse V2.0? Can you also see that Horse V1.8 and maybe Horse V2.4 can probably still mate?

Now creationists will claim that Horse V1.0 and Horse V2.0 were always different species, but this is where the fossil record comes in. If Horse V1.0 and Horse V2.0 lived at the same time, their fossils would be found in the same sedimentary layer. If Horse V2.0 is found in later layers, then we can see the progression. But understand that there is not a clear cut off as Horse V1.0 begins to blend into Horse V2.0.

edit; Last paragraph added
« Last Edit: August 14, 2014, 12:44:15 PM by Ron Jeremy »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #710 on: August 14, 2014, 12:49:20 PM »
^^  As J.B.S. Haldane famously answered when asked what would disprove evolution;  "...fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #711 on: August 14, 2014, 01:25:54 PM »
I think the problem for you, BS, lies in scientists naming things. I have come across many creationists that are unable to see through man-made names.

Precisely!  It's also why the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" is a false dichotomy.  No creature ever had a creature of a different species as proginy.  The divisions of, for example, species is a man-made distinction.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #712 on: August 14, 2014, 02:30:31 PM »
I am not sure how you misunderstood. The argument is:
 
(i) You must admit that the ToE does not involve magic.
(ii) Any explanation that involves magic must be inferior to one that does not involve magic.
Elaborating on this, which is a better explanation for the sun's apparent movement in the sky?

1.  An optical illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth (an explanation based on observations)
2.  A god causes it to move around in the sky (divine magic).

We can investigate #1 and determine if it is accurate or not, because it involves factors that we can physically check.  We cannot investigate #2 because of the "imponderable factors" involved.  Therefore, #1 is the better explanation.  Macro-evolution is the same way; we can investigate the fossil record and other such evidence left by dead organisms to see if macro-evolution fits as an explanation, but we cannot investigate a supposed "intelligent designer", because there is no evidence indicating that one ever existed in the first place.  It isn't enough to say, "it makes sense to me that an intelligent designer made organisms to order" or to write up logical arguments to that effect; you need actual, physical evidence showing this, or else it is not worth considering as a serious hypothesis.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #713 on: August 15, 2014, 02:20:11 PM »
You are claiming[1] that evolution must be 'proven' in order to be scientific, in short, that for something to be scientific, it must be proven.  However, science is not about proving things to begin with; it is about demonstrating things using evidence.  A lot of people use the concept of proof as a shortcut for this, but that's nothing more than linguistic sloppiness.  I am providing a link to a good article which debunks the misconception that science has anything to do with proof.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

I will let the article speak for itself, but I want to elaborate on one specific point:  "all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives."  This exactly describes the theory of evolution; it is the best explanation that we have for the diversity of life.  Trying to claim that since evolutionary theory is not 'proven', it is not scientific, is plain and simply wrong.  It is based off the false idea that something must be proven to be scientific.  When I accused you of weasel-wording, that's what I meant; however, I since looked up the definition of weasel-wording, and that isn't it.  Weasel-wording is a way to imply something without coming right out and saying it, and I have to admit you weren't doing that.
I realize that you feel that I am requesting evolution be proven in order for it to be scientific. Your accusation is incorrect. For what seems like the 100th time, I am simply asking that evidence be produced demonstrating that a mechanism(s) exists (or existed) that is/was capable of producing macroevolutionary changes. To the best of my knowledge, no such scientific evidence exists. What folks are doing is taking a couple of fossils and after establishing that they feel they are related, they are simply concluding that a biological process occurred which accounts for the transition. That is fine. However, those same folks cannot regard that conclusion as scientific because the process that produced that transition is unknown (and may never be known). In other words, there is this hole in the theory and people are simply filling it with speculation. Speculation is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is produced by making use of the scientific method to demonstrate that a process is capable of performing these large scale transitions.

Quote
Except you are incorrect, because your premise is that something must be proven in order to be scientific (thus why you are asking for a "soup-to-humans" proof).  However, science does not work through proof, it works through evidence.  Therefore, your claim that "certain aspects of the ToE are unscientific" is unsupported, because you are basing it off of the concept of proof, which is itself not scientific to begin with[2].  The point is that "macro-evolution", one of those aspects of evolutionary theory that you are referring to, is indeed scientific, for the reason that it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life (even though the evidence for it is far from complete), whereas trying to explain the diversity of life as being due to a designer has very little actual evidence going for it.
Look, you can try as you might to saddle me with this “proof” thing but I think you are being unfair for doing so….and you and I have already hashed this out.

Also, macroevolution is NOT scientific simply because it is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. Frankly, if that is what you believe then, with all due respect, I think that perhaps YOU have a distorted view of science. Macroevolution would be scientific if the scientific method could confirm the hypothesis that a biological process of some sort is capable of producing fingers, toes, brains, feathers, hair, blood, etc.….not because it offers what YOU feel to be the best explanation.

Quote
I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact of the matter is that by demanding that people here must 'prove' macro-evolution by providing a "soup-to-humans" chain or else admit that it's 'unscientific' shows only two things; that you don't really understand the science involved, and that you're not interested in trying to.  If you understood the science involved, you wouldn't be asking for proof, you'd be asking for evidence, and you wouldn't be demanding a level of evidence that is so purely arbitrary as to be ridiculous[3].  If you were interested in trying to understand it, you wouldn't be trying to draw a line in the sand like you are[4].
As far as I am concerned, you are either purposely or inadvertently complicating this matter to the point of it becoming so fogged up that you have lost sight of the true nature of my argument. First of all, please let go of this “proof” thing that you are so incredibly hung up on. At this point, it’s becoming a little annoying.

This is VERY simple. As I mentioned just a moment ago, there is a hole in the theory. You can either fill it with science or you can continue to pour speculation down the sides of the hole. I realize that perhaps you feel there is more to it than that but there really isn’t. The process, if it exists (or existed) is/was a very intricate, complex process and, as of now, there is no evidence for it. You can’t just dig up a couple of fossils and go “hey, those like a lot alike but they’re not alike but they had to be so there is really no reason to dispute that macroevolution occurred.”

I gave this example earlier in the thread:

If I said "hey, a friend of mine just experienced a miracle. He was just given a clean bill of health two months after he was diagnosed with a lethal form of cancer and told he would only live another 3-6 months," you would ask that I provide evidence that a miracle occurred. If I replied that the evidence lies in the fact that medical science cannot explain how this occurred and that the person and his family had prayed daily for a healing, would you accept that as evidence? Of course not. You would want evidence that miracles are possible and you would want to know "how" a miracle occurred, not just why I *think* it occurred.  You say that evolution occurred because the fossil evidence supports the theory but you have not told me "how" it occurred. Therefore, indicating that it did when you cannot describe "how" is begging the question because you cannot provide the scientific evidence that the "how" is even possible.

Quote
It's statements like this that lead me to conclude that you're using weasel-wording; the implication of fixating so much on proof is that if it is not proven, then it is not true and therefore false, but you are carefully avoiding saying that so that you can deny it if someone challenges you on it.  That is the definition of weasel-wording, and I suggest you avoid the appearance of it in the future.

Perhaps if you spent near as much time and effort answering the specific argument as you do trying to find fault with ME, we would make some progress. You seemed obsessed by a suspicion that I ma here to play a game of “gotcha” by manipulating people and using some perverted definition of science. Get over it and try sticking to the substance of the argument itself, please !

Quote
Except these two things have nothing to do with each other.  Science is not about proving things in the first place, and nothing in science is proven; indeed, nothing in science can be proven.  As for the theory of evolution (or portions of it) not being scientific, since your basis for this was that it wasn't 'proven', and the concept of proof is itself not scientific, you must come up with a different rationale if you wish to argue that it is not scientific.

Yes, you have made it perfectly and vividly clear that science is not about proving things and that you believe that I am asking for proof and that I’m weasel-wording, etc etc.

My rationale is very simple and rests heavily on the scientific method. I am not going to repeat my argument again. You can either demonstrate that the scientific evidence exists or you can’t. If your version of science dismisses the scientific method then we have a problem.

Quote
Why didn't you simply ask this to begin with, rather than roaring into the topic and claiming that macro-evolution wasn't proven and therefore not scientific? Science isn't about authority, nor is it about consensus.  It's about evidence.

Yes. I know it’s about evidence. If I thought otherwise, you would not have read me asking for it over and over again in this thread.

Quote
The reason the theory of evolution - and I mean the whole theory, not the highly artificial distinction between micro and macro that you're focused on - is scientific is because it is extremely well supported by the evidence we've found from examining the natural world.  There isn't anything else that even comes close to its explanatory power; it's so strong of an explanation that even finding evidence of a designer wouldn't counter it.

“Examining” the “natural world” is not scientific evidence. That is called observation and what one observation points to for one person can point to something entirely different for another. Observation is only one step in the scientific method.

Quote
In every single simulation of evolution ever made, the initial simulated organism is designed.  A human programmer made it for the simulation, not to mention that the simulation itself was designed.  And yet, it has no problems whatsoever with dramatic divergences from its initial parameters, to the point where it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original designed organism; macro-evolutionary changes, in other words.  In short, there's no reason whatsoever to conclude that just because something was originally designed, that it somehow could not have "macro-evolved".  Indeed, people have actually written programs which demonstrated that something designed would still be able to change at the macro level, such as Macrophylon.  Indeed, you should note that the Macrophylon program was written specifically to address macro changes, rather than micro, such as major changes in size or respiration.

I find the fact that you are offering up “simulations” as evidence rather telling. Using simulations for a process that cannot be identified has consent for the obvious written all over it. If this is your evidence for the biological process(es) that you assume exists (or existed) then I would say you have conceded that no actual evidence exists.

Quote
I am not impressed with your attempt to be disingenuous.  I did not say that they used a different scientific method, I said it was a common misunderstanding of the scientific method that was at fault.  Specifically, the idea that scientific methodology has anything to do with proof.  It does not; it has to do with evidence.  The scientific method does not prove anything; you cannot prove that something is true or false using it.  All you can do is demonstrate that your hypothesis or theory matches the evidence, and that it does so better than other explanations.

Okay. My bad. I stand corrected.

Quote
Your inability (or perhaps unwillingness would be a better term) to understand only reflects on you.  Especially your continued attempt to misconstrue my earlier statement as some kind of "alternate scientific method" that is used to support evolution.  There is no alternate scientific method.  However, it is certainly possible for people who are not very knowledgeable about it to misunderstand it (especially since it's common to understand proof and evidence as meaning the same thing) and thus assume that the scientific method is about proving things, when it has nothing to do with that.  People such as you, as you have clearly demonstrated through this thread, and are further demonstrating by continuing to misunderstand and misconstrue things.

Okay. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Quote
If it weren't for the fact that I'm aware of how fundamentally you're misunderstanding the scientific method and evidence vs proof, I would be quite offended at the insinuations you make here.  I'm hoping that my post will help to clear this up, but I'm not able to hold out much hope for that due to how much you've stuck to the false idea of "scientific proof" since you came into this topic.

As it happens, science is indeed about seeing how closely a proposed explanation fits the facts; it is either inductive (meaning, you start with an observation/hypothesis and then try to work up to a more general theory) or deductive (meaning, you start with a general theory and work down to the specifics), as described here.  Inductive reasoning is usually how we come up with theories, and then we use deductive reasoning to test them  Every branch of science works that way.  It's more than a bit ironic that you described exactly how science and the scientific method works, and then immediately claimed that it couldn't be supported by the scientific method and that it wasn't a scientific basis for anything.

Thank you.

Quote
It is anything but unscientific.  The only reason you think it is unscientific is because you think science is about proof, when it never has been.

No. The reason I believe it is unscientific is because neither you nor anyone else has been able to produce the science to back up claims for macroevolution. It really is that simple. I made a simple request and after almost nine pages of this thread, I have yet to see anything of real substance.

Think about it this way. If I had instead asked for scientific evidence of microevolution, this thread would have ended rather quickly because the evidence is robust and extremely difficult to debunk. Why I am having such a difficult time receiving scientific evidence for macroevolution.

Quote
Actually, the creationist/"intelligent design" crowd regularly make insinuations to that effect all the time, but they're making the same mistake as you did - seeing a word and jumping to conclusions.  You see, I said it was an educated guess - that is, based on knowledge and experience and thus likely to be correct.  And that is, in fact, the point.  Science always starts with educated guesses (otherwise known as hypotheses), which are either confirmed or falsified.  If they're falsified, then it's time for another hypothesis.  If they're confirmed (and more importantly, continue to be confirmed), they progressively become more likely to be correct.  But the point is that there is no stage at which a scientific theory is 100% certain to be correct.

And the even further irony is that this is actually how science works, and thus the only way creationism/"intelligent design theory" could possibly be taken seriously as science.  Instead, their advocates fixate on the idea of "disproving" elements of science which contradict what they want to be true, as if that would somehow make those things true.

Your comments are noted.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #714 on: August 15, 2014, 02:38:15 PM »
I don't have time to respond right now - it's long past time I should have gotten lunch - but I will say this much.

Science is a process, BibleStudent.  When you ask people to provide a complete evolutionary record, or a mechanism (which is the same as saying a completely understood process), or else it cannot be scientific, you're misunderstanding the whole thing in a fairly common way.  We don't have the full understanding of evolutionary theory that would be necessary to produce such things, but that does not make evolutionary theory unscientific, anymore than Aristotle and Ptolemy not having a full understanding of Earth's rotation and orbital mechanics made geocentrism unscientific.

What makes something unscientific is when it goes against the body of knowledge we have acquired through investigation and observation of the natural universe.  Macro-evolution not only does not go against that body of knowledge, it is supported by the relevant portions of it.  That's what makes it scientific; the idea that we must have a certain level of knowledge about something in order for it to be scientific is simply mistaken.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #715 on: August 15, 2014, 02:40:24 PM »
Why I am having such a difficult time receiving scientific evidence for macroevolution.

Because you cannot accept it without some sort of "mechanism"[1]. Even though we don't know the "mechanism" which causes gravity. Ok, fine.

The "mechanism" is your god of the gaps. Gotta be, because evolution does occur. Happy now?
 1. Pssst. It's genetic mutaion + time.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #716 on: August 15, 2014, 03:05:33 PM »
BS

Serious question rather than snarky comment.

Can you give me a quick rundown on why you don't think that genetic variation is a mechanism for evolution. We know that genes vary all the time (if we all started out as direct descendants of A&E, and later Noah and the gang, we certainly don't all look the same.) And yes, we have a many a scientific observation when it comes to seeing demonstrations of genetic variation.

Now I know you have said that things can change in small ways, genetically, but not in big ways. Have you explained to your own satisfaction what causes genetic variation to stop where you want it to stop rather than where we say it does (or, in this case, more or less doesn't)? It would help if you could tell us what mechanism prevents genetic variation from being as extensive as we claim over time.

And why haven't you attacked us on the age of the planet? Since we're claiming that it literally took billions of years to get form the beginnings of life until now, a period that, no coincidentally, allowed for billions of years worth of changes from the evolutionary point of view, why aren't you jumping up and down and telling us that nothing has existed that long?

Disregard that last question if you must, but I ask again, what mechanism are you aware of that would stop evolution, as described by science, from occurring. Why does it offend you to think that billions of little changes would never cause, over time, thousands of large changes?
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #717 on: August 15, 2014, 03:51:12 PM »
Asking for a complete evolutionary record on an internet forum? I sometimes have a tough time with a post with 12 paragraphs much less a complete evolutionary record. I think you'd have to hack the NSA's computers to find all that data and chances are all you're gonna get is me calling to find out what time the next bus is due..
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #718 on: August 15, 2014, 05:46:00 PM »
For the sake of moving this along, I'm willing to grant that despite what you said initially, you were and are not trying to demand that people prove anything to do with evolution.  Fair?

What folks are doing is taking a couple of fossils and after establishing that they feel they are related, they are simply concluding that a biological process occurred which accounts for the transition.
Have you actually reviewed the process by which paleontologists and biologists determine that species are genetically related?  Because, honestly, what you say above seems more like a parody than anything.  They are not just comparing fossils and saying, "gee, these sure look alike, they must have been related".  It isn't even just with fossils, for that matter.  For example, there is a family of birds collectively known as Hawaiian honeycreepers; all of these species have similarities in bone and muscle shapes, but that alone would not be enough to demonstrate that they all diverged from the same species (for one thing, they all have different bills used to eat different foods).

http://www.theguardian.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/nov/02/hawaiian-honeycreepers-tangled-evolutionary-tree

So what scientists did is took 47 bird species (the 19 surviving honeycreeper species and 28 additional species which appeared to be closely related, and then compared their mitochondrial DNA as well as their chromosomal DNA in order to determine how closely related they actually were.  It's worth mentioning that mitochondrial DNA is one of the ways in which we determine how closely related organisms are; since mitochondria in most animals (including mammals and birds) are only inherited from the mother, it is quite possible to trace matrilineal relationships through mtDNA, because the mitochondria in children is going to be exactly the same as in the mother (barring the occasional mutation, which is nonetheless very important because it helps to confirm those relationships; if two families have exactly the same mtDNA except for one mutation, then you can trace approximately where they diverged from each other).

Getting back to the honeycreeper study, this is what allowed scientists to determine that all of the extant honeycreeper species are evolved from a common ancestor.  They were able to determine that the mtDNA of all of these species was so similar that they could really only have come from a single ancestor species - which apparently diverged into honeycreepers and rosefinches.  This is clearly indicated on this diagram, where you can see the comparison of the two DNA analyses; the one on the left is mitochondrial DNA, and the one on the right is mitochondrial + nuclear chromosomal DNA.  This helps explain how the honeycreeper species got established in Hawaii to begin with, as many of the species on that list are known for the tendency of hundreds, if not thousands, of birds to all leave and go to some new nesting ground, where they will often stay to breed.

Finally, it is fully worth mentioning that the individual honeycreeper species are no longer capable of producing anything but 'mules' (infertile offspring) when they mate (if they produce anything at all).  Therefore, each is a separate species now, and the honeycreepers stand as solid evidence in support of macro-evolution.

Quote from: BibleStudent
That is fine. However, those same folks cannot regard that conclusion as scientific because the process that produced that transition is unknown (and may never be known). In other words, there is this hole in the theory and people are simply filling it with speculation. Speculation is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is produced by making use of the scientific method to demonstrate that a process is capable of performing these large scale transitions.
As the article I linked above shows, it is not simply, or even often, a matter of comparing physiological similarities between species, whether fossilized or not, that allows us to determine evolutionary relationships.  I won't deny that this is one of the means by which we determine possible evolutionary relationships, but it is the least reliable and thus the most easily refuted by additional evidence, such as DNA comparisons.

However, your claim that the process is unknown is not true.  Scientists have a good understanding of what the process is, descent with modification.  They also have a good understanding of what the elements of that process are (mutation, natural selection, and environmental pressure).  These are not guesses or speculation; they are based on observation and evidence, like all science is.  So while it is true that they do not have all the puzzle pieces yet, they have enough to put them together into a cohesive framework to formulate a scientific explanation.  Of course, that explanation can and will be improved as we find out more information, but lack of complete knowledge does not make something unscientific speculation.

Okay, that's getting pretty long, so I'm going to call it there.  I'll respond to the rest as I get the chance to.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 05:47:50 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline atheola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1308
  • Darwins +28/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Hospitals suck past an hour.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #719 on: August 15, 2014, 07:01:56 PM »
Where's gods DNA to prove we're all gods children?  Woops! It's invisible and would blind us all anyway so just have faith.. Now that's the scientific method, eh?  :o
You better believe it's not butter or you'll burn in hell forever and EVER!
Get on your knees right now and thank GOD for not being real!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #720 on: August 15, 2014, 10:08:24 PM »
I wrote several posts over the past two days that you have effectively ignored, BibleStudent.  If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to act like it, and that means responding to what I actually write, not quoting a sentence or two and then going off on a totally unrelated tangent.  I am providing a list of these posts, and I expect meaningful replies to them.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg628944.html#msg628944
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629003.html#msg629003
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629126.html#msg629126
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg629146.html#msg629146

I responded to the first link in a separate post. The next two links, for the most part, cover the same topics so I am, for now, going to refrain from responding to. If there are specific points you would like me to address, please indicate which and I will gladly comment on them.

Here I will respond to the last link:

It truly is amazing how much difficulty you (and others) seem to be having with grasping the meat of my claim. IF MACROEVOLUTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED A "SCIENTIFIC" CLAIM, IT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. MACOREVOLUTION IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MICRO+MICRO=MACRO. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC. Is that that difficult to understand?
The thing that I'm wondering about is why you think repeating something untrue enough times will make it true?  Evolutionary theory is not based on the strawman assumption that you detail above, and it does not matter how many times you make this claim, as that will not change the facts of the matter.

The fact of the matter is that large-scale evolutionary change, what you call macro-evolution, has been clearly identified through various means, which are backed by evidence.  For example, we can analyze DNA strands from various organisms and determine how much of that DNA is identical, which is strong evidence in favor of divergence.  Furthermore, we can identify roughly when a species emerged through the fossil record, which allows us to compare its DNA with that from contemporaneous organisms to see how similar they are to each other.  We've also noted that the closer the DNA of two organisms is, the more overall traits they share, and if the DNA is very close, it's reasonable to conclude that they're close genetic relatives.

By the way, we can use this exact same method to identify how closely related organisms within a species are.  That, by itself, is more than enough to show that the claim that there is some substantive difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is bogus.  When we can use the exact same technique to identify how closely related individuals within a species are, or to identify how closely related various species are, it is not even slightly reasonable to claim that there must be some key difference between small-scale evolutionary change and large-scale evolutionary change.

EDIT:  I'm sure you've heard that human DNA is at least 99.9% identical.  What that means is that the incredible variety we see between members of the human species is based off of changes which can only be described as miniscule - .01%.  The DNA molecule, if pulled into a straight line would be about three meters long, basically about half again as long as a human is tall.  10% is 30 centimeters, approximately one foot.  1% is 3 centimeters, about the width of a rulerstick.  .1% is 3 millimeters, about the size of an ant.  So .01% is 300 micrometers, not much thicker than a sheet of paper or a human hair.  This more than demonstrates the ridiculousness of your position that there is somehow a fundamental barrier between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  If that .01% difference in DNA is enough to produce all the variety we see in humans, then there is no reason at all to conclude that there is some unbridgeable barrier between different species which prevents them from ever changing significantly enough.

I am kind of surprised you introduced these as examples as they are easily overcome….especially the mention that 99.9% of human DNA is identical.  I can look at the same evidence and see a common designer. In fact, 99.9% suggests that if a designer designed DNA, He was extremely precise and effective in creating “incredible variation” with such little modification. This is why it so important to be able to identify a mechanism capable of producing the large scale evolution you claim. In short, I honestly fail to see how this convincingly points to a macroevolutionary process. It has suggestive power but, by no means, leads to a convincing argument….even if you are claiming that it is scientific in nature.

Perhaps one of the more profound recent discoveries comes from Michael Behe. His work with chloroquine resistance is, in my opinion, a noteworthy demonstration on the difficulties of mutational processes as respects macroevolution. I would provide some links but I do not want to be accused of leading you to information that favors my argument. If you are interested, you can pursue the information when it is convenient and in a way that you prefer.

[
Quote from: BibleStudent
We can witness the reality of gravity. Have you witnessed macroevolution occurring or do you know of any experimentation that demonstrates it occurred?
False equivocation.  We do not have to personally witness something in order for it to be true.

If I drop an object and it falls to the ground, I can observe gravitational force. We can perform repeatable tests to confirm or falsify the hypothesis (a critical piece of scientific work). We have, what is considered uncontroversial scientific evidence, for the gravitational force. Therefore, we have the necessary support to declare gravity a scientific fact.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Why do you (and others) keep sliding sideways away from the topic of this discussion?
This is why I find your current aggressive style so tiresome.  It's not based on anything factual - it's based on trying to keep other people off-balance so they can't respond effectively; you set up strawman after strawman to try to force people to respond the way you want them to, and if they don't, you accuse them of dodging, sliding sideways, changing the subject, or other things along those lines.  However, we're on an internet forum; people can take their time in responding.  Furthermore, it's easy enough to look back on previous posts to see just who is playing games.  So your strategy doesn't really work.  It simply makes you look like a nincompoop for wasting our time like this.

Okay. I’ll take a step back then and allow you (or someone else) the opportunity to explain to me why gravity is being introduced into a discussion about macroevolution.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Yes, but according to him, "proof" is not an option when discussing the nature of scientific endeavors....so, why even mention it?
Why did you bring it up in the first place?  Why are you now trying to deny that you ever did, when anyone can go look back at your post on August 4 and see that you did in fact say that people should make sure their proof was supported by the scientific method?

I did not bring it up. As I have pointed out and it is quite clear, One Above All brought it up. I fail  to see why you are insisting that I did.

Quote from: BibleStudent
What does that have to do with with determining whether macroevolution is supported by scientific evidence or not? Seriously. Please explain how this ties in.
Haven't you ever heard of analogies?  You can sometimes make a point through analogy with something else.  In this case, Add Homonym is using the lack of evidence for the biblical flood to demonstrate what something that really isn't supported by evidence (and thus isn't scientific, since it stands on the authority of the Bible and nothing else) is, to contrast it with macro-evolution.

Yes, I know what an analogy is. I still fail to see how using the Biblical account of the flood as an argument in support of macroevolution applies. In fact, I believe that Add Homonym’s comments were nothing more than antagonism. There is no relevance whatsoever. Who is insisting that the flood is a scientific fact?

Quote from: BibleStudent
Good for you. That doesn't make what you accept scientific.
On the contrary, the fact that all the evidence we've found points to it is what makes evolutionary theory (including macro-evolution) scientific.  Even if someone found something that contradicted current theory, it wouldn't make that theory unscientific, anymore than Copernicus having better instruments and thus being able to demonstrate that the Earth actually moved made the original geocentrism theory unscientific.

Now, instead of continuing to beat this dead horse, how about you come up with something a little more reasonable than claiming that macro-evolution isn't scientific for whatever reason you're claiming today.

I need for you to explain what is unreasonable about expecting that the scientific method be used to support macroevolution.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #721 on: August 15, 2014, 10:15:56 PM »
Asking for a complete evolutionary record on an internet forum? I sometimes have a tough time with a post with 12 paragraphs much less a complete evolutionary record. I think you'd have to hack the NSA's computers to find all that data and chances are all you're gonna get is me calling to find out what time the next bus is due..

How does asking for scientific evidence of macroevolution become a request for a "complete evolutionary record?"

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #722 on: August 15, 2014, 11:04:57 PM »
Here's a whole bunch of links that show the relationship between dinos and birds

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/feathered_dinosaur_links.htm

Is there anything in any of those links that you find compelling? It appears to be a somewhat old webpage because some of the links don't work and others are rather dated. A couple of them that I opened are brief summaries of other reports or papers and don't offer much. Did you really spend much time reviewing the links? Again, if there are some specific items you would like to discuss, just let me know.

Quote
then there's the 29+ evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ this is quite lenghty but covers most bases

BS, you may want to pay attention to the section titled "What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?" It could answer some of your questions.

The "29+ Evidences For Macroevolution" has been debated ad nauseum. The following excerpt from the section titled "Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories" is indicative of the weaknesses of these "evidences." It can also serve as my response to the section titled "What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?" that you pointed out above:


"The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open. "


In other words, the author acknowledges, for one thing, that he is "assuming" the existence of biological mechanisms that would support or falsify some of his "evidences." That's not to suggest the effort he made is pointless but "evidences" based on assumptions of that magnitude make his conclusions highly suspect and absent of critical scientific support.
 

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #723 on: August 15, 2014, 11:22:02 PM »
BibleStudent -

Again, if you want experimental validation that micro + ... + micro = macro, then by all means, pick some random whatever, do a bunch of micro changes to that whatever, and note if you see a macro change.

It could very well be that self-replicating biological systems are subject to some phenomenon or mechanism that puts inherent limits on the degree of change that can be seen from ancestor 1 to ancestor 93,457,901,243,875.  But you need to explain what that phenomenon or mechanism is, because, as regular observation of reality has shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again and again and again and again, small changes that accumulate results in a big net change.

I'm going to go ask a question I asked you earlier in this thread in a slightly different way:
Is there any kind of a macroscopic change that you can think of in all of observable reality such that the mechanism for realizing that change does not involve the accumulation of microscopic changes?  You answered 'no'[1], which is the same answer I'd have.  Now, one very good explanation for why you can't come up with an example of a macroscopic change that is not the result of accumulated microscopic changes is because the only difference between macro and micro is scale.  A macroscopic change simply is the accumulation of microscopic changes.
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26933.msg628381.html#msg628381

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. If this is your biological mechanism of choice, then there is an identifiable limitation to the level of micro changes that can occur.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #724 on: August 15, 2014, 11:41:31 PM »
It truly is amazing how much difficulty you (and others) seem to be having with grasping the meat of my claim.

I think the difficulty lies solely with you, BibleStudent.  If you can't be bothered to examine the extensive evidence in the fossil record, it's patently obvious to Me that you are not sincerely interested in understanding evolution, and that you will find an excuse to reject anything we come up with.

You do your alleged god no honour with this kind of behaviour, by the way.  If you have to resort to misrepresenting opposing views to defend your faith, rather than objectively demonstrating the truth of your position, your faith is a nothing more than a sad, angry ghost.

You mentioned the fossil record as evidence so perhaps you could use that to demonstrate the step by step process that took place evidencing how a snake evolved from a lizard….or a bird from a dinosaur, etc. etc. Take your pick. Please do this so I can demonstrate to you how unscientific your conclusions are. And, please, when you are doing this, kindly identify the biological mechanism(s) that was busy at work performing this transition. No guesses or assumptions or speculation or “we think” stuff. Please provide the facts and the science to explain the transition.