Is the theory of evolution correct?

@Leadfoot,

Every sentence you spoke undeniable truths.

The proof, farmerman disappeared as he always does and he'll be gone until he thinks the heat is off.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

... or post a wall of true but unrelated technobabble. Gives the appearance of having “shredded his opponent” , he thinks.

There are a lot of A2Kers who do that. They are of the vote up their partisans crowd, vote down those who point out their many, major foibles.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Even if we accept that macro evolution happened...

Even if we accept that it happened? Listen to yourself. What century are you living in? Of course it happened. It's been a proven scientific fact for well over a century. And no, that's not a baseless assertion, it's an assertion made with overwhelming scientific evidence. A baseless assertion is saying that you can infer that everything was programmed by a magical super-being (without a shred of evidence).

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

And no, that's not a baseless assertion, it's an assertion made with overwhelming scientific evidence. A baseless assertion is saying that you can infer that everything was programmed by a magical super-being (without a shred of evidence).

See what I said, LF. It sure didn't take long for one of those folks to pop up, did it?

You make and have made and support baseless assertions, ros, all without a shred of evidence.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote Out of context.
What I said was :

Quote:

Even if we accept that macro evolution happened, the idea that mutations accomplished it is still just a theory. It has not been directly observed nor experimentally duplicated.

By 'happened' I meant by the means you claim - random mutations. Which was perfectly clear in the full quote.

And the truth is you have not seen it happen nor demonstrated it experimentally. And they have tried damn hard and failed every time.

Your substitution of 'predictive power' for infallibility does not fly.
You ready to accept a prediction by ID for that as well?

It would predict that we would not find life elsewhere in the solar system based on the idea that an intelligence would not choose a planet that was not suitable for long term biological life. So far it’s got a better record than the theory as expounded by evolutionists who say that life will spontaneously erupt anywhere you have light, rocks and water. So far that theory fails.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

HEE HEE. so an intelligent designer would NOT populate a planet were life couldnt exist. This one is self sustaining isnt it? (Its like the guy tossing bits of paper around .
When asked "Why you tossing little bits of paper around"?

"To keep the rhinos away"

"I dont see any rhinos here" the other fella said

"Works pretty good doesnt it

_____________
Ive stated several times (where you consistently ignore) that weve managed to measure and see Macro Evolution occur among fish, birds, insects and several microorganisms, all during histori times.
Your entire case is the "gungargument" where , if you didnt see it happen it didnt happen. _

_______________
One area thats growing as a prime example of the "mosaic hypotheses" is the late discovery of whale fossils of intermediate types that seem to harden the evidence train about whales and their origins.

In paleontology we use several aspects of evolution to help us define possible locations for resource exploration. A regional oil reservoir complex in the belly of the mid east and southern Asia is defined by an archipelago with shallow marine deposits of the lower to mid Eocene. These are also great locations for observing the evolution of land to marine adapting genera (called whales). We look at what we call "mosaics" of features that xist in the developing genera. Moosaics are traits that span the evolution of a species or higher taxa . The land traits include hooves and high yes, external featured auditory system, no bilateral line ,.etc etc. Marine trait include changing legs and digits , extension and configuration of tails to adapt to water. A mosaic feature of a whale was posed to be found in sub Asian EOCENE sediments. Like Tiktaalik, a new whale "intermediate" fossil clerly displaying the 51/49 % break line between land v water dwellers was found in deeper marine "estuary" deposits near India. The fossil, "Kutchicetus" was discovered in 2008 and , reading the drilling reports that followed the science,The oilfield paleontologists said they had a team explore an area of mid Eocene sediments that would post date Pakicetus time. They said they used the same "falsifiability methodology' that Shubin and Daeschler used when they went to Elsmere to hunt fishapods.

I find that exciting . Im living in a time when even guys like gungasnake will have to accept evience that follows the the laws of science. Calloo Callay

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Noone ever called it a "missinglink" Daeschler is a paleontologist and he and Padian argued the point whether Tiktallik is ancestral to amphibians or land dwelling reptiles. The point is that it really is an intermediary from water to land is where both Deschler and Padian would agree. It like the "neo Darwin v Darwin" argument. ITS A PHONY. scientists arent drifting away from nat selection they are redefining the rolls that genes , adaptation , and other dynamics like genetic drift play in evolution.The neutral theory guys have recognized that science is playing into hands of Creationism , and have been planning reserch to look at the rols of populations .Besides, the Creationist/IDers arent smart enough to understand the nuances of the science. Will we see the name "neodarwinian thinking" rsurrected? after all, with the recognion of heritability vi epigenetic means makes the "neo" come alive again.
As for me science is too much fun .
Its an argument about angels on a pins head as far as Im concerned .When ya gotta go to Google to see what I said and then try to drum up an airyheaded argument, youre admitting that youre knowledge aint exactly deep enough to carry on a collegial discussion You should have tht atop your head .
I believe Im the one who first stated that there were at least three major and severl minor faults in Darwin's theory, all have to do with his inability to incorporate genetics BECAUSE HE DIDNT KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT GENES.
His most telling rror is that his inherite trait get dissoved to nothingness in about 6 generations. Had he lived another 10 years and met gregor Mendel maybe he woulda had an edition 7 that handled the new idea of how traits are preserved.

Yet his theory is still considered the single greatest thought experiment of the millenium. Its not going away by various evidence -free and baseless claims of religiosity

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I’ve gotten used to the name calling and insults, they don’t bother me so much as disappoint me.

thats a great example of passive agressive insult.

"IM not gonna engage in cheap insults like my opponent here, no sah, not me"
Sheesh wat can I say but to tell you that Im not under any ob;ligation to agree with many feeble arguments because my demeanor . "disappoints" you . I like sharper arguments.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I like sharper arguments.

Then why haven't you ever posted any?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote Out of context.
What I said was :

Quote:
Even if we accept that macro evolution happened, the idea that mutations accomplished it is still just a theory. It has not been directly observed nor experimentally duplicated.

By 'happened' I meant by the means you claim - random mutations. Which was perfectly clear in the full quote.

Oh wait, I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that you agree that evolution happened and is happening, you just don't agree that random mutation alone is sufficient. And if I understand correctly, it's not the micro changes which you think need assistance, its just the macro changes, those need to be designed and built.

That's an amazing theory. So every day, when we observe bacteria evolving resistance to drugs, the designer is in there tweaking its pet bacteria to get just the right code to survive those drugs. And throughout billions of years of history the designer was there when the big changes were needed, swapping one key molecule for another.

Wow, I wonder how it accomplishes that exactly. Do you think it reaches into the mix of chemicals and creates a nano-scale electrostatic force field of some kind and pushes a cytosine into a slot where a thymine would have gone? Or maybe it just changes a cytosine into a thymine like an alchemist changing lead into gold. That would be cool. Or maybe it just alters the probability of a random mutation occurring in a particular place, thus making its actions completely indistinguishable from natural random mutation. All it would have to do is alter probability, it wouldn't even have to change anything in the physical world.

Of course, following this idea to its conclusion, if the underlying mechanisms that you propose for evolution aren't natural, then it's really not evolution any more is it. No, it's just basically creationism all over again in a trickier form. Shocker. Nobody saw that coming huh?

So I didn't take your quote out of context. The context as a whole shows that you don't agree with evolution after all, even though you say you do. What you actually agree with is some form of strained molecular creationism hiding in increasingly small cracks. Another "God of the gaps" argument, just in a smaller gap.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

HEE HEE. so an intelligent designer would NOT populate a planet were life couldnt exist. This one is self sustaining isnt it? (Its like the guy tossing bits of paper around .
When asked "Why you tossing little bits of paper around"?

"To keep the rhinos away"

"I dont see any rhinos here" the other fella said

"Works pretty good doesnt it

A childishly simple comparison to invalidate.

If it happens spontaneously, there is no reason why life would not have happened on Mars back before most of its atmosphere and water were lost to the solar wind. However, an intelligence would have the ability to foresee that Mars was a dead end and not bother to start there.

Logic supports ID in this argument. And you can not argue that both our positions are not falsifiable in the near future. Needs to be direct evidence, not vague things like soil that 'looks similar to bio-mat structures seen on earth', which is as close as they’ve seen so far.

Willing to bet a C note on definitive evidence of life past or present on Mars?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

uhhhh, using paleo soil evidence (C12 in Greenland shales) that was evidennce about the time of lifes origins on this planet.

You do know that our own planet will become a cinder in a few billion years when ole Sol loses its H fuel and starts burning the waste fusion product--( helium). How do you handle that side condition with your " Super intelligent designer "who wouldnt locate life on a rock it knows aint gonna make it?

Ya oughta reconsider your offer to bet based on "Logic" because evidence doesnt necessarily always favor "logic"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ya oughta reconsider your offer to bet based on "Logic" because evidence doesnt necessarily always favor "logic"

You, of all people, farmerman, suggesting someone else should look at evidence. The irony is astounding!

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Oh wait, I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that you agree that evolution happened and is happening, you just don't agree that random mutation alone is sufficient. And if I understand correctly, it's not the micro changes which you think need assistance, its just the macro changes, those need to be designed and built.

So far you are fairly close. I don’t know the limits of micro evolution, but yes, those are easily understood in terms of what happens. It easily explains the mutations we see in the bacteria 'evolution' experiments you mention. They are 'single bit errors' as you mentioned below. What I do not see as a logical possibility is entire new body plans arising out of such micro evolutionary processes.

Quote:

That's an amazing theory. So every day, when we observe bacteria evolving resistance to drugs, the designer is in there tweaking its pet bacteria to get just the right code to survive those drugs. And throughout billions of years of history the designer was there when the big changes were needed, swapping one key molecule for another.

No, these micro mutations you bring up are possible by natural causes. They are single bit errors that anyone can see the possibility of. It becomes even clearer when you look down into exactly what happened to the bacteria. One of the prime examples of 'evolution' in bacteria is the 50,000 generation experiment where a bacteria 'gained' the ability to metabolize a sugar that it was not able to before.

What they found was that the mutation caused a loss of an inhibitor function that prevented that metabolism. The bacteria always had the inherent ability to use that sugar, but there was an inhibitor function that stopped it that was lost in the evolution. I don’t know enough about that bacteria to know why the inhibitor function was there, but we know it is much easier to lose a function than to gain one. No gain occurred in this case.

The only directly seen example that gained something was the drug resistant bacteria you mentioned. The mechanism is fully understood and it was as you said, a single nucleotide mutation that did the trick. It caused the anti biotic to no longer recognize the bacteria.

This I can easily believe, it was the golden B.B. that accomplished an 'improvement', if resistance to an anti biotic can be called that. But it is a damn rare occurrence. The mutations that caused detrimental changes outnumbered this 'successful' mutation a trillion to one (I made that number up but the magnitude is like that).

Quote:

Wow, I wonder how it accomplishes that exactly. Do you think it reaches into the mix of chemicals and creates a nano-scale electrostatic force field of some kind and pushes a cytosine into a slot where a thymine would have gone? Or maybe it just changes a cytosine into a thymine like an alchemist changing lead into gold. That would be cool. Or maybe it just alters the probability of a random mutation occurring in a particular place, thus making its actions completely indistinguishable from natural random mutation. All it would have to do is alter probability, it wouldn't even have to change anything in the physical world.

I know you’re being factious here but do you actually ponder it seriously? I admit to doing it a lot and find it enjoyable. I have no idea what the exact mechanism was, I’m just gobsmacked that it does not look plausible that either abiogenesis or macro evolution could happen by random chance even with natural selection helping. The math or biological evidence just does not support that hypothesis.

Quote:

Of course, following this idea to its conclusion, if the underlying mechanisms that you propose for evolution aren't natural, then it's really not evolution any more is it. No, it's just basically creationism all over again in a trickier form. Shocker. Nobody saw that coming huh?

I doubt anyone here doesn’t know I am a theist. That happened long before I started thinking about biology, ID, etc. Theology has nothing to do with the argument though. It might have theological implications, but just studying the probability of life coming to be and macro evolution happening as the theory of evolution claims is only just that, a scientific study devoid of theology.

It is not good science to reject any evidence just because it might be interpreted as having theological implications. That is not science's concern.

I should add that from a theist's perspective, ID is a very poor motivation to accept a belief in God and I would never recommend anyone doing that.
The main attraction of ID for me is the interesting philosophical and emotional reactions to it. People are by far the most interesting things I know of.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You do know that our own planet will become a cinder in a few billion years when ole Sol loses its H fuel and starts burning the waste fusion product--( helium). How do you handle that side condition with your " Super intelligent designer "who wouldnt locate life on a rock it knows aint gonna make it?

We might guess that the designer will have concluded the experiment long before the sun goes red giant. Fun to think about what the object of the experiment might be too.

Quote:

Ya oughta reconsider your offer to bet based on "Logic" because evidence doesnt necessarily always favor "logic"

Nope, I wasn’t just shoot'n my mouth off. If you accept, I’ll send a crisp C note your way as soon as definitive evidence of life is found on Mars. What do you say we put a time limit of 15 years, around the time we should both be wrapping things up here.

Whatdayasay?

1 Reply

Ironically enough, the discovery of biological evolution allowed for spiritual evolution on a large scale. However, those who are opposed to biological evolution are usually also opposed to spiritual evolution.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Nope, I wasn’t just shoot'n my mouth off.

Well then I apologize,(Its difficult for me to be able to tell when you are or arent).

You seem to have abandoned your "logic" eh?, or are you like tall the other IDers wherein everything they pose seems to support their beliefs. WHY? I hve no idea

As far as betting a C note, better check the T&C's .

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

Quote:

However, those who are opposed to biological evolution are usually also opposed to spiritual evolution.

That’s a new one.

What does 'spiritual evolution' mean to you?

0 Replies

I'd have to go along with that. Spiritual evolution reminds me of people in the latter 20th century and the beginning of this century who condemn others as "un-evolved."

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote: ‘Oh wait, I think I get what you're saying. You're saying that you agree that evolution happened and is happening, you just don't agree that random mutation alone is sufficient. And if I understand correctly, it's not the micro changes which you think need assistance, its just the macro changes, those need to be designed and built.‘

It does seem that the scientific evidence supports the Genesis account of creatures being created cording to their ‘kinds.’
The dog kind, the cat kind, the whale kind, the horse kind, the Bear kind, The monkey kind, and of course mankind etc.
Minor adaptation (microevolution)can occur within these genetic groupings, yet are limited.
Biblical teaching aside, this is the best scientific theory for the observable world around us.
Adaptation, not innovation(macro evolution). Macro Evolution is a religious belief.

1 Reply

Is the theory of evolution correct?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know