Blog debate : Proof of Evolution

[Hespera]

I've actually met people (online, at least) who fully accept the evidence and everything, but reject it on wholly religious grounds. Mind-boggling.


They're proud of their beliefs. You gotta admire them for their conviction, if nothing else.


I don't think it's technically bearing false witness: they genuinely believe what they're saying is true.

The people you met who accept the evidence but reject it. hmmm. not sure what that means. But it does for sure does not mean they ahve anything but the sort of vague notion about evolution that i described.

False witness.....that may be an interesting one to try to go into in depth.

If i say "he is the one who did it"... with nothing but my opinion, that maybe i really believe, on my own personal standards, no evidence whatever... is that telling the truth?

if i utterly fail to do anything resembling due diligence before making a pronouncement about what is true or real....and, it happens that i am wrong...is that honest? is that truthful? is it bearing false witness?

 

[Hespera]

Dawkins said "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum". Do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Evolutionists are far more ignorant than I ever imagined. I can see conversing with you is utterly pointless.

so tell us obi-wan, where is your out of place fossil?

 

[laconicstudent]

Dawkins said "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum". Do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Evolutionists are far more ignorant than I ever imagined. I can see conversing with you is utterly pointless.

Dawkins was obviously referring to modern animalia appearing at a completely inconceivable time, like Pre-cambrian rabbits. There is no reason why Cephalopods couldn't have originated in the Cretaceous.

Besides, Dawkins isn't God. Theories aren't disproven because an arbitrary statement one person makes is violated.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because the animals we see today are billions of years old and haven't evolved into any animal.

On the contrary, they have: we are the descendants of primitive bacteria. Evolution doesn't say that species must undergo large, morphological changes. If there are no selection pressures, then it's likely that nothing will happen at all. There's no reason why a modern organism can't resemble its distant ancestor.

"...Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'" -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 2006

Fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum.

Source?

EDIT: I think I've found what you're talking about. Tell me, why do fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous represent a wrong fossil? The octopus is clearly distinct from modern species, having only a superficial resemblance to its modern counterparts. Fossil rabbits in the precambrian is significant because there is simply no plausable way for rabbits to have lived in the Precambrian - at least, according to the evolutionary view. But octopuses in the Cretaceous is something else entirely, since it's not in the slightest a problem for evolution. The Cretaceous octopus is simply an ancestor of modern octopuses.

Therefore evolution is empirically falsified.

And if you don't believe that's true, then it's obvious you don't believe evolution is scientific since it cannot possibly be falsified by evidence.

I don't believe your claim, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the evidence. Evolution is very much falsifiable: there are countless possible scenarios that would blow evolution out of the water (a giraffe giving birth to an octopus, for example).

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme." -- Karl Popper, philosopher, 1976

Popper can say what he likes; he is not the sole authority to whom we all bow. And indeed, he later changed his mind:

"I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection."

Not if it has a finite lifespan.

It would still be approaching infinity: every year, the Earth's age increases. It's age tends to infinity. That's just a mathematical fact.

Such as stars which are assumed to be older than 14 billion years old.

Which stars are assumed to be older than 14 billion years? Who makes this assumption, and why?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The people you met who accept the evidence but reject it. hmmm. not sure what that means. But it does for sure does not mean they ahve anything but the sort of vague notion about evolution that i described.

They seemed quite knowledgeable about it.

False witness.....that may be an interesting one to try to go into in depth.

If i say "he is the one who did it"... with nothing but my opinion, that maybe i really believe, on my own personal standards, no evidence whatever... is that telling the truth?

Yes, insofar as 'the truth' is that which you think is 'The Truth'. There's an important difference between what is, and what we think is.

if i utterly fail to do anything resembling due diligence before making a pronouncement about what is true or real....and, it happens that i am wrong...is that honest? is that truthful? is it bearing false witness?

It's dishonest and it's a poor effort on your part, but if you genuinely believe it, you are genuinely telling the truth.

 

[Tenka]

Dawkins said "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum". Do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Evolutionists are far more ignorant than I ever imagined. I can see conversing with you is utterly pointless.

You're just wrong. You have not presented an example of something being to exist before it's probable ancestors did. This octopus was in the cretaceous, but the first cephalopods started diversifying way back around the carboniferous.

IT IS SO SIMPLE, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You're just wrong. You have not presented an example of something being to exist before it's probable ancestors did. This octopus was in the cretaceous, but the first cephalopods started diversifying way back around the carboniferous.

IT IS SO SIMPLE, YOU ARE WRONG.

Why do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Do you know what geology is?

 

[Tenka]

Also, stop posting that Karl Popper quote mine, It makes you look unimaginably foolish and deceitful to anyone with access to google.


Quote: Karl Popper

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

On the contrary, they have: we are the descendants of primitive bacteria.

What evidence do you have man evolved from bacteria? What strain of bacteria did man evolve from? Why and in what year? What fossil do you have that's intermediate between bacteria and man? Why did some bacteria magically evolve into man while others didn't?

Evolution doesn't say that species must undergo large, morphological changes.

Are you saying that the hypothesis of evolution says that animals stay the same for billions of years and never evolve into anything?

If there are no selection pressures, then it's likely that nothing will happen at all.

Can you give an example of a selection pressure and why you believe that no animals have faced such so-called "selection pressure?"

There's no reason why a modern organism can't resemble its distant ancestor.

Evolution. Evolution means change. Stasis is the opposite of evolution.

The Cretaceous octopus is simply an ancestor of modern octopuses.

Do you think that means that the modern octopus they found in the Cretaceous is not an octopus?

What is the difference between the modern octopus they found in the Cretaceous and the modern octopuses we see today?

The fossil says they are identical.

there are countless possible scenarios that would blow evolution out of the water (a giraffe giving birth to an octopus, for example).

Nonsense. If a giraffe gave birth to an octopus the evolutionists would say, "See! Our religion predicted that! Darwin knew it all along!" Even though Darwin totally plagiarized his falsified hypothesis from an ancient with a more fully developed brain who was less devolved than him named Anaximander.

Which stars are assumed to be older than 14 billion years? Who makes this assumption, and why?

Cosmology and physics are faith based. Since the universe as a whole has never been experienced and cannot possibly be experienced from Earth or even in one lifetime, all claims about it are faith based.

 

[Hespera]

Why do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Do you know what geology is?

the cretaceous was a period of time not a stratum. strata are layers of rock.

why dont you tell us some more about geology? those of us who only have like a minor in it would like to learn more.

 

[Tenka]

Why do you claim the Cretaceous is not a geological stratum? Do you know what geology is?

This is not a reasonable inference to take from my post.
This is not a topic of current debate.
Cretaceous is a time period, not a stratum although strata may contain the preserved remains from this period.
Please indicate that you realise why you are wrong concerning the claims you've made about the cretaceous octopus.

 

[laconicstudent]

Do you think that means that the modern octopus they found in the Cretaceous is not an octopus?

What is the difference between the modern octopus they found in the Cretaceous and the modern octopuses we see today?

The fossil says they are identical.

forgetting what the paper actually says again?

It actually says this.

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Three previously unknown octopods are described from Upper Cenomanian limestones of the Hâqel and Hâdjoula localities (Lebanon). Keuppia levante gen. nov., sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolaris gen. nov,. sp. nov. and Styletoctopus annae gen. nov, . sp. nov. are regarded as the earliest representatives of the Octopoda (= Incirrata). This assumption is mainly based on their medially isolated bipartite gladius vestige. As can be inferred from growth increments, Keuppia gen. nov. can be distinguished from the genus Palaeoctopus by blades that grow forwards along their longitudinal axis. The gladius vestige of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. differs from that of Keuppia levante sp. nov. in having a more heterogeneous course of growth lines. Based on a pair of widely separated stylets, which closely resemble the rods of modern octopods, Styletoctopus annae gen.

nov., sp. nov. is assigned to the Recent family Octopodidae. Peculiar encrustations, which are situated in close association with the gladius vestiges of Keuppia levante sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolarisStyletoctopus annae sp. nov. are interpreted as basal fin cartilages. sp. nov., and The gladius vestige morphology of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. and Keuppia levante sp. nov. opens the possibility that both the Octopda and the Cirroctopoda originated from loligosepiid vampyropods instead of teudopseid. The surprising existence of a stylet-like gladius vestige in Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. suggests that the octopod clade branched off much earlier than previously believed. Octopod apomorphies such as the development of stylets, loss of fins and cirri must have been occurred before the Cenomanian.

And maybe you noticed that the are in an entirely different genus from the modern cephalopods? Could it be because of all those bolded features which differentiate them from the rest?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's because they are exactly the same as modern bacteria.

Hardly. One species of bacteria can eat nylon, yet that was only invented in the 1930s.

Are you saying that the hypothesis of evolution says that animals stay the same for billions of years and never evolve into anything?

I'm saying that evolution is the means by which species split and diversify over the aeons. Some species don't change, and their descendants resemble their ancestors.

Can you give an example of a selection pressure and why you believe that no animals have faced such so-called "selection pressure?"

I believe some animals have gone a long time without experiencing any major selection pressure. A changing environment, due to either migration or an actual climate shift, would create a pressure that favoured (say) longer-haired individuals to shorter-haired individuals. Over time, long hair becomes the norm: this is evolution.

Evolution. Evolution means change. Stasis is the opposite of evolution.

Evolution means a change in the frequency of inheritable traits. It needn't be a large change, or even an overtly noticable change.

Do you think that means that the Cretaceous octopus is not an octopus?

No. I believe it is an octopus, and I believe it lived in the Cretaceous. It is not the 'fossil bunny' Dawkins mentioned, since evolution can easily accommodate the fossil; a Cretaceous octopus is not surprising, but a Pre-Cambrian bunny would be very surprising, to the point that it would pretty much disprove evolution.

What is the difference between the modern octopus they found in the Cretaceous and the modern octopuses we see today?

They didn't find a modern octopus in the Cretaceous, they found a fossil.

Among other things, the fossil displays a prominent gladius, something not found in modern octopuses. Rather, the gladius of a modern octopus has evolved to be a small bar.

The fossil says they are identical.

Take a closer look. The differences are superficial, at best.

Nonsense. If a giraffe gave birth to an octopuses the evolutionists would say, "See! Our religion predicted that! Darwin knew it all along!"

Really? Where does the theory predict that giraffe's will give birth to octopuses?

Even though Darwin totally plagiarized his falsified hypothesis from an ancient with a more fully developed brain who was less devolved than him named Anaximander.

Ad hominems are logical fallacies, AoS. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

Cosmology and physics are faith based. Since the universe as a whole has never been experienced and cannot be experienced, all claims about it are faith based.

Empirical deduction removes the need for faith. We know the stars are made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium by the acquisition evidence and falsified theories. Since faith is something believed in without reason, no evidence-based belief can be considered 'faith'.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

It needn't be a large change, or even an overtly noticable change.

I rest my case.

The change I observe is from superior organisms to inferior organisms and it's called devolution.

No. I believe it is an octopus, and I believe it lived in the Cretaceous. It is not the 'fossil bunny' Dawkins mentioned

Why do you believe bunnies are fossils and octopuses aren't?

since evolution can easily accommodate the fossil

Dawkins said otherwise.

a Cretaceous octopus is not surprising

You must be the only person who wasn't surprised because every scientist who wrote on the topic was surprised and some evolutionists claimed it had been planted there (perhaps by an agent of the devil?).

but a Pre-Cambrian bunny would be very surprising, to the point that it would pretty much disprove evolution.

Dawkins did't say it had to be a bunny. He said and I quote (these are his words not mine) "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum."

They didn't find a modern octopus in the Cretaceous, they found a fossil.

A fossil of a modern octopus in the Cretaceous. What's the difference? I thought you've already conceded that evolution means animals can stay exactly the same for billions of years.

Among other things, the fossil displays a prominent gladius, something not found in modern octopuses. Rather, the gladius of a modern octopus has evolved to be a small bar.

I'll have to look into this further.

Take a closer look. The differences are superficial, at best.

That's my point. The differences are non-existent in my view. And the same with every other ancient organism including man.

Really? Where does the theory predict that giraffe's will give birth to octopuses?

How are species created if not by evolution?

Empirical deduction removes the need for faith.

If that's true, then why do evolutionists ignore evidence that contradicts their faith?

We know the stars are made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium by the acquisition evidence and falsified theories.

Wrong. Stars are not made entirely of hydrogen and helium.

Hydrogen is formed in the corona as predicted by Hoyle: Solar Flare Surprise: Stream Of Perfectly Intact Hydrogen Atoms Detected

The sun is a mass of buring iron as claimed by Anaxagoras: The surface of the Sun:The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery. The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

http://www.thesunisiron.com/

Since faith is something believed in without reason, no evidence-based belief can be considered 'faith'.

I don't believe faith based science is concerned with evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alas, I have to go to bed. I'll post my response in the morning

 

[laconicstudent]

I rest my case.

The change I observe is from superior organisms to inferior organisms and it's called devolution.


Why do you believe bunnies are fossils and octopuses aren't?


Dawkins said otherwise.


You must be the only person who wasn't surprised because every scientist who wrote on the topic was surprised and some evolutionists claimed it had been planted there (perhaps by an agent of the devil?).

Dawkins did't say it had to be a bunny. He said and I quote (these are his words not mine) "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum."


A fossil of a modern octopus in the Cretaceous. What's the difference? I thought you've already conceded that evolution means animals can stay exactly the same for billions of years.


I'll have to look into this further.


That's my point. The differences are non-existent in my view. And the same with every other ancient organism including man.


How are species created if not by evolution?


If that's true, then why do evolutionists ignore evidence which contradicts their faith?


Wrong. Stars are not made entirely of hydrogen and helium.

Hydrogen is formed in the corona as predicted by Hoyle: Solar Flare Surprise: Stream Of Perfectly Intact Hydrogen Atoms Detected

The sun is mass of buring iron as claimed by Anaxagoras: The surface of the Sun:[wash my mouth] The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery.[wash my mouth] The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.


I don't believe faith based science is concerned with evidence.

It never ceases to amuse me the way you switch topics and ignore the refutation of your entire argument






Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Three previously unknown octopods are described from Upper Cenomanian limestones of the Hâqel and Hâdjoula localities (Lebanon). Keuppia levante gen. nov., sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolaris gen. nov,. sp. nov. and Styletoctopus annae gen. nov, . sp. nov. are regarded as the earliest representatives of the Octopoda (= Incirrata). This assumption is mainly based on their medially isolated bipartite gladius vestige. As can be inferred from growth increments, Keuppia gen. nov. can be distinguished from the genus Palaeoctopus by blades that grow forwards along their longitudinal axis. The gladius vestige of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. differs from that of Keuppia levante sp. nov. in having a more heterogeneous course of growth lines. Based on a pair of widely separated stylets, which closely resemble the rods of modern octopods, Styletoctopus annae gen.

nov., sp. nov. is assigned to the Recent family Octopodidae. Peculiar encrustations, which are situated in close association with the gladius vestiges of Keuppia levante sp. nov., Keuppia hyperbolarisStyletoctopus annae sp. nov. are interpreted as basal fin cartilages. sp. nov., and The gladius vestige morphology of Keuppia hyperbolaris sp. nov. and Keuppia levante sp. nov. opens the possibility that both the Octopda and the Cirroctopoda originated from loligosepiid vampyropods instead of teudopseid. The surprising existence of a stylet-like gladius vestige in Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. suggests that the octopod clade branched off much earlier than previously believed. Octopod apomorphies such as the development of stylets, loss of fins and cirri must have been occurred before the Cenomanian.

And maybe you noticed that the are in an entirely different genus from the modern cephalopods? Could it be because of all those bolded features which differentiate them from the rest?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The surprising existence of a stylet-like gladius vestige in Styletoctopus annae sp. nov. suggests that the octopod clade branched off much earlier than previously believed.

Thank you for providing evidence to support my case.

I also believe octopuses existed "much earlier" than evolutionists believed.

Evolutionists believed that octopuses only evolved in the past few thousand years.

But then we found the fossil octopus that blew evolution in Dawkins' words "out of the water."

 

[laconicstudent]

Thank you for providing evidence to support my case.

I also believe octopuses existed "much earlier" than evolutionists believed.

Evolutionists believed that octopuses only evolved in the past few thousand years.

But then we found the fossil octopus that blew evolution in Dawkins' words "out of the water."

And the theory was revised. What is your point?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And the theory was revised. What is your point?

LOL.

Change the hypothesis to suit the facts rather than abandon the falsified hypothesis?

It's like building epicycles to save geocentrism.

 

[laconicstudent]

LOL.

Change the hypothesis to suit the facts rather than abandon the falsified theory?

Yea, its called the Scientific Method. You may have heard of it.