Evolution? How?

Good point Neo. I don't have the time, for instance, to read thru all of Pauli's links to try to figure out how it is supposed to be a response to what I posted.

I do post links. But I usually try to post them with the relevant excerpt included, so folks know what point I am addressing and how I answer it.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It might not sound like politics but then again there might be a bit of politicking underneath.It is going to depend on what is meant by "scientist".

"........according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science........"

from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp a pro-evolution site

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
TR

KINGDOM
PHYLUM
CLASS
ORDER
FAMILY
GENUS
SPECIES

Now, try to focus on the above Linnean hierarchy. If a new FAMILY is evolved then obviously, by definition a new species is evolved. I think youre using a term (micro evolution) and dont have any appreciation of its meaning.

Any system of classification is, by it's own definition, subjective. So categorizing any creature as a new species or part of a new genus, etc is simply a function of the taxonomist's desire to call it so.

It's just a matter of where someone decides to draw a line and what traits will and won't make one creature 'different enough' from another to call it something else.

In the case of the cichlids, the fish are still fish, if I recall. This remains so, whether you classify them as new species , etc....... or not.

If a new taxonomical system is adopted, with more levels of gradation , say 12 instead of the 7 you listed, then no doubt taxonomy will be given much more emphasis in the classroom in order to solidify in young skulls full of mush the idea that great changes from "A level" all the way to "E level" have taken place among the cichlids, and can't we now plainly see that evolution has taken place since these many classificational barriers have been traversed by this famous critter?

(No really! The pea DID move from under that cup to under this one! )

So, how does an IDer define the word "species?"

Hi Infra,

It's not the definition of the word 'species' that is the crux, it's the definition of the word 'evolution'.

'Smoking gun' evidence has been offered to prove evolution since these cichlids evolved................into cichlids.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

0 Replies

Of course you dont "Buy it" real life. Your worldview doesnt accept even the consideration of objective data and evidence.The fact that we answer your same questions over and over without you even respnding in an intelligent fashion is quite disheartening. After youve repeted yourself about 6 or 7 times that "I can buy microevolution but macroevolution doesnt occur''.Then We present evidence that macroevolution HAS MEASURABLY occured and then you come up with , "well theyre still fish".(or birds or dinosaurs). I present evidence of many intermediate forms from the fossil record and you say its somehow valueless to your way of thinking. (Why not just admit that your mind is snapped shut)
If this position becomes an entire focus of your argument, Im afraid that no amount of evidence will be considered by you.
The fact that youve bought into Plate tectonics (when the entire evidentiary base for this is , of course circumstantial,) is quite interesting.

Youve gotta come up with some decent real science arguments and evidence to support your position, even some "circumstantial" evidence. You dont do this because you havent any.

PS , how do you rectify your Biblical position with Plate Tectonics and the resultant ages of formations at continental collision points? Your explanation oughta be really creative (or , as I suspect, will just continue to be some form of fundamental Christian pedantry)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

'Smoking gun' evidence has been offered to prove evolution since these cichlids evolved................into cichlids.

The 'Smoking Gun' used to be considered pretty conclusive evidence. As a matter of fact it was the "gold standard" in evidence. You seem to think it's virtually worthless.

Both Science and Law work on a scale of "reasonable doubt", so smoking guns are pretty tough to beat. Especially in the case of evolution where you've got hundreds of smoking guns from different disciplines which all point to the same conclusion.

0 Replies

What Creationists/ID'ers insist upon ignoring - apart from scientific evidence, logic, and reason, is that Evolution makes no assumption or assertion regarding Origin - "The Beginning". Evolution merely describes, and with the plausibility of overwhelming evidence, the process by which things got from whatever started the ride to where they are now.

There really is no equivalence between Evolution and Creationism/ID; one is a scientific theory which survives the tests of predictability, reproducibility, and non-contradiction, the other is an agenda wrapped in a fairytale based on assumptions, wishes, and superstions.

0 Replies

Timber,

You mean in your opinion?

0 Replies

That's clear enough.Nobody can argue with that surely?

What created the "beginning".Was it an intelligent design,which would have no difficulty with your thesis,repetitive though it is,or are you and me and everybody else,including your nearest and dearest,the result of a random accident without meaning or purpose?

It's only a matter of faith after all.Which is it?A fairytale or a giant monkey compound.I'm for the fairy tale.It's more fun.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

PS , how do you rectify your Biblical position with Plate Tectonics and the resultant ages of formations at continental collision points? Your explanation oughta be really creative (or , as I suspect, will just continue to be some form of fundamental Christian pedantry)

fm, if you don't mind my dropping in uninivited, plate tectonics actually caused the flood, according to Dr. Baumgardner at AIG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate_tectonics.asp

however, there's a catch: in an earlier paper by Dr. Baumgardner, which he references in the above article, he stated:
[pardon the lengthy quotation, but Dr. Baumgardner's explanations are thorough]

Quote:

One difficulty in making a connection between these calculations and the Flood is their time scale. Some 2 x 107 years is needed before the instability occurs in the second calculation. Most of this time is involved with the accumulation of a large blob of cold, dense material at the barrier created by the phase transition at 660 km depth. This time span disappears when the initial condition consists of a large belt of cold material already trapped above this phase transition in the pre-Flood mantle. A relatively small amount of additional negative buoyancy in such a belt can then trigger runaway. One means for providing a quick pulse of negative buoyancy is by the sudden conversion to spinel of olivine in a metastable state that resides at depths below the usual transition depth of about 410 km...In the context of the Flood, it is conceivable that an extraterrestrial impact of modest size could have triggered a sudden conversion of metastable material to the denser phase and the resulting earthquakes then propagated in a self-sustaining manner to convert the metastable material throughout much of the upper mantle to the denser spinel phase, which in turn initiated the runaway avalanche of upper mantle rock into the lower mantle. It is also conceivable that a single large earthquake generated by causes internal to the earth could have been the event that caused a sudden conversion of the metastable material and then the runaway avalanche.

http://globalflood.org/papers/iccsubduction94.html

so evidently the flood was ultimately caused by either a lager eqrthquake or an extraterrestrial impact which the Bible somehow neglected to mention. either that, or material had to be accumulating for 20 millions years prior to the flood in order to trigger it, which doesn't gibe with a recent origin of the earth.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That's clear enough.Nobody can argue with that surely?

Argue away - just bring to the argument something other than guesses and assumptions, something more substantial and verifiable than "Faith", if you wish for your proposition to have a shot at succeeding in the argument.

Quote:

What created the "beginning".

We have at present insufficient data from which to draw any meaningful conclusion. We simply do not know the circumastances of "The Beginning", and despite the fact the math, astronomy, and physics work all the way back to the Big Bang, we have no means of verifying it, or of discerning what or even if - anything preceeded it. We just don't know. We may never know, we may someday know. Whichever, presently, we don't know. At the moment, the answer is "We don't know". Unsatisfying though it may be, "We don't know" is an answer, and the only answer provided through logic and reason given the resources and assets currently at our disposal.

Quote:

Was it an intelligent design,which would have no difficulty with your thesis,repetitive though it is,or are you and me and everybody else,including your nearest and dearest,the result of a random accident without meaning or purpose?

Now there's a wagon of false dichotomy drawn by a team of straw men - great job. Meaningless, but a great job of getting to meaningless none the less.

Quote:

It's only a matter of faith after all.Which is it?A fairytale or a giant monkey compound.I'm for the fairy tale.It's more fun.

That sorta says it all.

Momma Angel wrote:

... You mean in your opinion?

No, I mean on the basis of the available evidence examined with academic and scientific rigor and integrity. One may have whatever opinion one finds convenient or comforting. On the other hand, by logic and reason, no other conclusion than that which I endorse may be drawn; there simply is no legitimate evidence in support of, nor legitimate science behind, the Creationist/ID proposition. Whether or not ever we will know, whether or not even if ever it may be within our capacity to know, at present we do not know.

0 Replies

Actually Timber, I was referring to your fairytale statement. In your opinion it's a fairytale.

0 Replies

In your opinion, "Faith" aside (kids have faith in Santa Claus, remember), how does it differ from a fairytale? Where is its concrete evidentiary support?

0 Replies

We have been through this how many times? The evidence I could offer, you would not accept.

I will just never understand how some people think it's okay to label others' beliefs in such a way.

I may say that I do not agree with someone's religion and tell them why I don't agree with it. And I've said all this before also.....

0 Replies

What evidence have you presented? Hearsay, anecdote, and belief are not evidence.

0 Replies

Timber,

I have no desire to get in an argument with you. What you require as evidence may be different than what I require as evidence.

0 Replies

RL wrote:

Hi Infra,

It's not the definition of the word 'species' that is the crux, it's the definition of the word 'evolution'.

The definition of the word 'species' is important so that we can be on the same page while discussing things that concern 'species' such as 'evolution.'

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
'Smoking gun' evidence has been offered to prove evolution since these cichlids evolved................into cichlids.

The 'Smoking Gun' used to be considered pretty conclusive evidence. As a matter of fact it was the "gold standard" in evidence. You seem to think it's virtually worthless.

Both Science and Law work on a scale of "reasonable doubt", so smoking guns are pretty tough to beat. Especially in the case of evolution where you've got hundreds of smoking guns from different disciplines which all point to the same conclusion.

I'll try to be careful in using sarcasm around you, Ros.

So I'll speak plainly. You may consider cichlids "evolving" into cichlids as smoking gun type evidence of evolution. I do not. Darwin's finches "evolved" into finches. Stunning, I am sure.

Some consider minor variations appearing in creatures to be "microevolution', a word employed to lend credence to the idea of the whole concept of evolution. I consider the word to be misleading, at best.

(There are lots of variant characteristics in the human family. I wonder which do you consider to be the more highly evolved....)

To infer, for example, that minor variations are just small steps in wholesale remaking of a creature into a completely different one is simply that -- an inference, not much else.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Timber,

I have no desire to get in an argument with you. What you require as evidence may be different than what I require as evidence.

That which satisfies religionists does not meet the requirements demanded of evidence. Again, hearsay, anecdote, and belief are not evidence. Faith is fine, but it remains, no matter how firmly held and devoutly embraced, only a guess.

real life wrote:

... simply that -- an inference, not much else.

Perhaps. However, it would be an inference derived through observation, comparison, confirmation, replication, and deduction relevant to quantifiable data, not parameters by which the proposition you profess is known.

0 Replies

"One can never receive enough evidence of God, if they do not have faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence."

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

"One can never receive enough evidence of God, if they do not have faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence."

Untested faith is credulity.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know