veracity of evolution

@richrf,

richrf;86939 wrote:

And determinism is pretty much out the door

Uncertainty is not mutually exclusive with determinism. Uncertainty only speaks to what we can know; and if you assume uncertainty to be true, we can neither rule in nor rule out determinism.

0 Replies

@William,

William;86937 wrote:

Great analogy Pathfinder, for the second we "open or invade" that "coke bottle" if you will notice, something inexplicably" escapes it's perfect un-disturbed function and goes missing and if you shake it up it, before you open it when you do, it regurgitates all over the place and it's "flavor goes flat and dies". Hmmm?

William

Yes William, the mystery contained within the bottle that they completely ignore as a separate consideration.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 01:10 PM ----------

richrf;86947 wrote:

They also found the Piltdown Man:

I think putting together jig-saw puzzles, based upon what may or may not have happened in the past, are quite tricky.

Rich

The bone grinder and glue are definitely a staple of the evolutionists tool box.

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 01:13 PM ----------

Dave Allen;86948 wrote:

Neil Shubin's team did not - a forger hoping to make easy money did. Real paleontologists (like Shubin) exposed the hoax, and nobody in the field thinks Piltdown is anything more than a rather pathetic forgery.

And there was no need for it anyway - seeing as much better fossil finds of missing links between humans and other great apes exist which no one is able to similarly expose as fakes.

Now you see Dave, this si exactly what I am talking about here.

you know as well as I do that if they ever actually find 'The Missing Link" that the whole world will know about it in hours and evolution will be finally acknowledged an undisputed fact. And yet you talk as though that has happened already.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86954 wrote:

Yes William, the mystery contained within the bottle that they completely ignore as a separate consideration.

Good French tutors need not teach Spanish.

Quote:

The bone grinder and glue are definitely a staple of the evolutionists tool box.

Fortunately the frauds are quickly exposed by the professionals.

I mean, if it wasn't for professional paleontology - you wouldn't even know that Piltdown was a forgery - it was exposed by the same people you seem to seek to smear by use of it's example.

FORGER: Look! I've found the missing link.
PUBLIC: Cor wow. It this for real?
POPULAR PRESS: Missing link found?
PALEONTOLOGIST: No - it's a fake.
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL: Pildown is a fake.
DENIERS OF EVOLUTION: Paleontologists and scientists are fakers!

Do you see how unfair and duplicitious this is? The fraudulent liars are exposed by the same people who are then smeared because the frauds occurred.

Proven forgeries have happened - but this does not mean that those that haven't been proven forgeries are.

Quote:

Now you see Dave, this si exactly what I am talking about here.

you know as well as I do that if they ever actually find 'The Missing Link" that the whole world will know about it in hours and evolution will be finally acknowledged an undisputed fact. And yet you talk as though that has happened already.

There are hundreds of missing links found - one of Odenskrigare's first posts on the forum gave a list of many of them.

However, people are just stubborn. I refer you back to flat earthers and geocentrists.

Perhaps you think of Missing Link as something other than my definition. It would help me if could explain what you mean by missing link, and why things like Tiktaalik or Ida or Homo Habilis don't count?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86959 wrote:

Fortunately the frauds are quickly exposed by the professionals.

It took over 40 years to realize that the Piltdown man was a forgery.

For all practical purposes it is very difficult if not impossible to verify the evidence or the conclusions in all cases. So, we have to take the word of the explorers.

It is all a very nice story, and I enjoy reading about it. I love the fact that people are out there discovering new things and sharing them with us. However, it is the conclusions, stated as fact or theory, that bothers me. And then you have all kinds of facts being created and presented out of these very tentative speculations. But I also understand the practical reasons for bundling everything under the general title of Evolutionary Theory, I just disagree.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86962 wrote:

It took over 40 years to realize that the Piltdown man was a forgery.

1912 June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered
1912 November: News breaks in the popular press
1912 December: Official presentation of Piltdown man
1914: Talgai (Australia) man found, considered confirming of Piltdown
1923: Weidenreich reports Piltdown remains consist of a human cranium and an orangutan jaw.

11 years for those within the field to get, a bit longer for the popular press to catch up.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;86963 wrote:

1912 June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered
1912 November: News breaks in the popular press
1912 December: Official presentation of Piltdown man
1914: Talgai (Australia) man found, considered confirming of Piltdown
1923: Weidenreich reports Piltdown remains consist of a human cranium and an orangutan jaw.

11 years for those within the field to get, a bit longer for the popular press to catch up.

Yes, but we can see the effects of a single forgery.

Here is a complete timeline:

1908: Dawson "discovers" first Piltdown fragments
1912 February: Dawson contacts Woodward about first skull fragments
1912 June: Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard form digging team
1912 June: Team finds elephant molar, skull fragment
1912 June: Right parietal skull bones and the jaw bone discovered
1912 November: News breaks in the popular press
1912 December: Official presentation of Piltdown man
1914: Talgai (Australia) man found, considered confirming of Piltdown
1923: Weidenreich reports Piltdown remains consist of a human cranium and an orangutan jaw.
1925: Edmonds reports Piltdown geology error. Report ignored.
1943: Fluorine content test is first proposed.
1948: Woodward publishes The Earliest Englishman
1949: Fluorine content test establishes Piltdown man as relatively recent.
1953: Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley expose the hoax.
2003: Full extent of Dawson's hoaxes exposed.

Notice the seeming confirmation in 1914. I realize things are always in dispute but evidence, particularly archeology evidence can always be disputed, massaged, modified to suit a theory. It is not the same, as a simple set of equations that predict outcome. For me, the two are completely different and have different standing when I analyze evidence.

Is it really possible to verify all that happens in the world of paleontology, archeology, biology, sociology, etc.? For me it is a grand potpourri of ideas living under the general umbrella of Evolutionary Theory, providing the efforts some weight - I guess. It is a grand idea, but in my eyes hardly a theory. I personally prefer the approach of physicists, which is why I rely more on their work in my own attempts to understand the nature of the universe.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86966 wrote:

Is it really possible to verify all that happens in the world of paleontology, archeology, biology, sociology, etc.?

I imagine it is,given enough time and expertise. Could be wrong, but I reckon it is.

Quote:

For me it is a grand potpourri of ideas living under the general umbrella of Evolutionary Theory, providing the efforts some weight - I guess.

The umbrella is "Natural History" - not evolution. Evolution is just a mechanism within natural history.

It happens that, for example, paleontology as currently understood seems to fit neatly within evolutionary understanding.

It could easily overturn it - for example if a paleontologist found a fossil rabbit in cambrian rocks (and verified that the find was not hoaxed) - that would pretty much overturn evolutionary accounts of natural history.

So paleontology does not sit within evolution (as the rabbit would not overturn paleontology - it would give it more to do) - but it happens to fit with it with jigsaw precision.

Quote:

It is a grand idea, but in my eyes hardly a theory. I personally prefer the approach of physicists, which is why I rely more on their work in my own attempts to understand the nature of the universe.

Sure - but nothing about physics contradicts with contemporary biology afaict.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Pathfinder and Richrf

Exactly what is it about the general scientific theory of evolution that you are objecting too?

-that higher organisms have evolved from lower organisms over time?
-that there are genetic variations between generations?
-that some variations are more able to survive and reproduce than others?

the details are debatable and still being debated, the exact origins of and ancestors to humans and other species are not known but what about the general theory do you object to?

Quantum mechanics and discussions of determinism or purpose are not part of the general theory.

Professor Dawkins assertions about the blind watchmaker and God delusion are not part of the general theory.

What is your detailed or even general objection to evolution as a concept for the origins of life and biological diversity?

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86966 wrote:

For me it is a grand potpourri of ideas living under the general umbrella of Evolutionary Theory, providing the efforts some weight - I guess. It is a grand idea, but in my eyes hardly a theory. I personally prefer the approach of physicists, which is why I rely more on their work in my own attempts to understand the nature of the universe.

I'm fascinated by Mahayana Buddhism, but I don't believe in it. I love Catholic art, especially sacred music and gothic architecture -- but I'm not a Catholic. In fact I love all sorts of sacred music, literature, and traditions -- but I'm a sort of apathetic Jew. Why do I like these things? Because they move me, they fascinate me, they're ceaselessly complex and interesting and nuanced.

I say this, Rich, because for someone who professes openmindedness as much as you do, I truly pity the fact that you cannot allow yourself to appreciate the phenomenal ideas, work, and understanding generated by evolutionary biology.

This is different than asking you to believe in it. Fine, maintain your skepticism. But man it's interesting, complex, endlessly nuanced, and it's sure worth more than a dismissive wave of your hand -- whatever you believe.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;86973 wrote:

Pathfinder and Richrf

Exactly what is it about the general scientific theory of evolution that you are objecting too?

-that higher organisms have evolved from lower organisms over time?
-that there are genetic variations between generations?
-that some variations are more able to survive and reproduce than others?

the details are debatable and still being debated, the exact origins of and ancestors to humans and other species are not known but what about the general theory do you object to?

Quantum mechanics and discussions of determinism or purpose are not part of the general theory.

Professor Dawkins assertions about the blind watchmaker and God delusion are not part of the general theory.

What is your detailed or even general objection to evolution as a concept for the origins of life and biological diversity?

This is my problem:

Here is your formulation of the theory:

-that higher organisms have evolved from lower organisms over time?
-that there are genetic variations between generations?
-that some variations are more able to survive and reproduce than others?

Here is a previous formulation:

1) Living things reproduce themselves.
2) The reproductions are not perfect - there is always variation.
3) Some variations are better at surviving in the organisms environment than others.

Here is another definition:

The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

Specifically, biological evolution refers to the development of ancestral species into current diverse species.1 The slow process of evolutionary development comes about through changes in DNA, or mutations, which fundamentally change the biology of the organism. When those changes are favorable to survival, they are preserved. If a population of some species undergoes a substantial number of such changes - and is geographically isolated from other related populations - a new species may appear.

And yet another, more expansive:

Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between both and palaeontologists. It stated that:[20][21][22]

All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).
Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. The role of genetic drift is equivocal; though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild was greater than expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.
In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Historical contingency means explanations at different levels may exist. Gradualism does not mean constant rate of change.

The idea that speciation occurs after populations are reproductively isolated has been much debated. In plants, polyploidy must be included in any view of speciation. Formulations such as 'evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another' were proposed rather later. The traditional view is that developmental biology ('evo-devo') played little part in the synthesis, but an account of Gavin de Beer's work by Stephen J. Gould suggests he may be an exception.[23]

And then there yet another expansive definition, here which I will not paste in this thread:

Evolution. Who is Evolution? What is Evolution? Where is Evolution? Definition of Evolution. Meaning of Evolution.

And as I keep looking for a clear definition, the more I am convinced there isn't any. There seems to be a clear consensus that this is the most important theory - but about what?

With this kind of mushiness, I cannot describe, research, discuss, challenge assertions, or discern any practical benefit from the theory. It seems to be a general umbrella under which ideas, observations, speculations, etc. can hide under as being part of a theory. In some cases, these speculations are declared to be facts. In some cases, I find them to be very nice stories with no way to prove, disprove, or even understand how they fit into any theory.

I would compare the situation to that of the Ptolemaic model of the universe, which was just getting more and more complicated, and needed a general house cleaning as provided by the Copernican model.

For me, Evolutionary Theory it is a mess and all kinds of claims can be made underneath the umbrella without any way to agree or refute. It seem like anything goes.

I realize that scientists try hard to defend the basis for all of their work, but for the life of me, I don't even know what they are defending. It is like a water. It takes the shape of the vessel, however one wishes to formulate the vessel.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 09:55 PM ----------

Aedes;87008 wrote:

But man it's interesting, complex, endlessly nuanced, and it's sure worth more than a dismissive wave of your hand -- whatever you believe.

I agree it is all of the above. And I said I find it fascinating. However, there are practical everyday issues that evolve when someone takes some idea, sticks it underneath the umbrella of Evolutionary Theory, then pulls it out from the other end as a fact, and then seeks to use these facts in order to impose some newfangled idea on the rest of the population.

There is too much black-box magic going on here for my taste and not necessarily with the best of intentions.

Rich

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

alright just take the definition I gave. Do you have a problem with that particular limited formulation?

Do you find any of the major concepts there problematic or beyond the available evidence?

Do you have some other explanation for the origins and diversity of life?

Evolutionary theory is not representable as a mathematical formula like physics. It is a historical process and so our knowledge of the details is limited and incomplete as they are with any historical process including say the origin of the universe. I do not think any serious biologist would say we have a complete picture but there is no alternative theory which fits the facts and observations as well.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;87032 wrote:

alright just take the definition I gave. Do you have a problem with that particular limited formulation?

I would certainly discuss it further since I think there are many points that can and are being debated. Some of the more expansive definitions that I posted allude to the debatable points that are covered by the more expansive definitions.

However, the primary problem is the one that I mentioned in my previous post. I don't know what the heck I am discussing.

It reminds me of a discussion I once had on another forum about Taijiquan (Tai Chi). Everyone was discussing it and arguing about it, but no one could define for me what it was. So everyone agreed that there was something there, but no one could tell me what. One forum member simply said "you know it when you see it." That is kind of the way I think Evolutionary Theory is currently formulated. With this kind of framework to deal with, I don't even know where to begin a discussion or how to agree or refute any statement. It is like silly putty that can be stretched and formed anyway someone wishes.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87035 wrote:

I would certainly discuss it further since I think there are many points that can and are being debated.
Rich

=that higher organisms have evolved from lower organisms over time?
-that there are genetic variations between generations?
-that some variations are more able to survive and reproduce than others?

Go ahead, I am all ears. Which of these assertions do you take issue with? and why? what is your alternative explanation for the diversity of life?:listening::perplexed:

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87028 wrote:

There is too much black-box magic going on here for my taste and not necessarily with the best of intentions.

I think greater attention to it would swiftly dispel this idea -- unless you read it with the same generic prejudice against it that you keep communicating.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;87036 wrote:

=that higher organisms have evolved from lower organisms over time?
-that there are genetic variations between generations?
-that some variations are more able to survive and reproduce than others?

Go ahead, I am all ears. Which of these assertions do you take issue with? and why? what is your alternative explanation for the diversity of life?:listening::perplexed:

Hi,

Besides the ongoing debates within the Evolutionary Theory world, I have my own perceptions that come from a different point of view, which I would put under the title of metaphysics.

I do believe that diversity comes from the many variations of that which genes manifest from, and it has nothing to do with the ability to survive, but rather the evolution of knowledge (information). This would be more akin to Bohm's Implicate Order Universe where knowledge/information is stored as waves and unfolds as physical objects. One being the other side of the coin of the other.

But this is all metaphysical. As I said, my problem with the Theory as it stands is that I cannot comprehend what it is.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-30-2009 at 10:45 PM ----------

Aedes;87037 wrote:

I think greater attention to it would swiftly dispel this idea -- unless you read it with the same generic prejudice against it that you keep communicating.

In the contrary, a simple reading of this thread would confirm how widely different views of Evolutionary Theory can purport to support widely different ideas of what are facts and what are not. I believe there is a real issue here, and I think there are others in the scientific community who may also believe the same. I will let the scientists debate, when they are allowed to. I personally do not find any use for the theory (whatever form it may take), but I do enjoy reading about the wide variety of observations and explorations of various scientists/explorers in the various related fields. Some ideas I more readily believe than others.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;87038 wrote:

I do believe that diversity comes from the many variations of that which genes manifest from, and it has nothing to do with the ability to survive, but rather the evolution of knowledge (information). This would be more akin to Bohm's Implicate Order Universe where knowledge/information is stored as waves and unfolds as physical objects. One being the other side of the coin of the other.
Rich

I am pretty sure David Bohm himself would not have trouble with the fundamental tenets of the biological theory of evolution.

I would agree that the theory of evolution has been improperly and loosely applied to many other areas, consciousness, etc.

I simply do not know what you mean by "that which genes manifest from".
You do not think survival and reproduction have anything to do with biological diveristy?
Do you believe the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe there have been mass extinctions of life on the planet?
Do you believe many forms of life present in the past are now extinct?
Do you believe that DNA holds the "information" necessary for various life forms?

I understand that you have a spiritual or theistic view of the universe.
I do also. The biological theory of evolution is not incompatible with spiritual views. What does David Bohms "implicate order" metaphysics have to do with biological evolution?

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;87046 wrote:

I understand that you have a spiritual or theistic view of the universe. I do also. The biological theory of evolution is not incompatible with spiritual views. What does David Bohms "implicate order" metaphysics have to do with biological evolution?

If one views matter arising out of Consciousness (the observer), and Consciousness is the sum component of experiences and knowledge bundled together with Intent and Creativity, then one can view evolution entirely as a manifestation of evolving knowledge and information gathering as opposed to "survival of the fittest". I personally find the last notion not only not conforming to my own observations of the universe (diversity implies survival of all types) but also a bit distasteful.

But these are my own metaphysical views, and I do not want to discuss them in a thread concerning evolution. It belongs under Metaphysics. Suffice to say, that I think the Theory of Evolution is problematic for me in many ways. From a scientific point of view, I find the definition nebulous and therefore cannot be understood well enough for discussion. However, I think it is great for getting people arguing.

Rich

---------- Post added 08-31-2009 at 12:45 AM ----------

prothero;87046 wrote:

Do you believe the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old?
Do you believe there have been mass extinctions of life on the planet?
Do you believe many forms of life present in the past are now extinct?
Do you believe that DNA holds the "information" necessary for various life forms??

I have really never thought much of these questions and don't really have a strong belief one way or another. I think these are all interesting ideas that I read about them now and then in science articles and magazines that I might be perusing, but they are not pertinent to the way I view life and are not practical enough to affect my day to day living.

For example, whether or not the earth is 4.5 billions years old or twice that is of little concern to me. I can take one or the other. What type of mass extinctions there may have been is sometimes interesting to read about including how the Bible might reference them. The nature of DNA is interesting and I like to read about it. These are all very interesting ideas.

Rich

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

I think that in order to study the ongoing condition of something, and how it evolves, one needs to know where it began to evolve so they have a starting point to work from.

Otherwise you are measuring a line without holding the end of the tape at the beginning of the line and will not get an accurate measurement. All speculation on the reality of that line from an inaccurate point of observation will only be inaccurate speculation.

Evolutionary biologists are studying something that they have not accurately measured and should therefore not be proposing any of their findings as fact until they can get an absolute measurement. There is no problem in pulling and tugging on the line to see what it consist of and to test its limits and possibilities, but please do not declare that you have followed the line to its completion in either direction when you know that you have not.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

well hey yeah to find out how high a mountain is I need to know the diameter of the Earth first

of course evolution is totally like measuring the length or height of things, isn't it obvious

weak analogy: anyone can do it

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

The Theory of Evolution
I came across this while traversing the net. Interesting little twist on the current discussion. Unless I missed reading a page here (which is possible) this could freshen things up. If not oh well I tried.

0 Replies

veracity of evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know