Nested Hierarchy: Evidence for Evolution

[Saucy]

Yeah, I am quite aware of that.

In another thread I am debating with a person who denies evolution, and insists "other reasons might exist beyond evolution". But he never wants to tell me how he thinks it happened, if not by evolution.

If I have it wrong, I would want people to do more than taunt me for being wrong. I would expect them to answer when I ask them what they thought was right concerning how things came into existence, as well as present evidence for their view. Go figure.

Isn't there evidence that life just suddenly and spectacularly appeared on earth? I think it's called the Cambrian explosion.

 

[pitabread]

I know you believe science, created by fallible people, is the 100% absolute truth, despite that fact that it changes constantly.

You'd be wrong in that. Generally people who understand science know that it's definitely not "100% absolute truth".

What science is, however, is the best method we have for understanding the natural world and universe in which we inhabit. From that understanding that we derive useful applications and technologies which contribute to our own standards of living and general well-being. And believe it or not, this includes biological evolution.

So whether you personally accept the findings of science is completely irrelevant in this regard. Science marches on.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ding. Ding. So not everything in the OP was a lie! I was correct when I said somebody would post this graph in response.

Maybe I was right on some other things too, huh Saucy?

 

[Saucy]

nested hierarhcy isnt evidence for evolution for 2 reasons:

1) the fact that we find many cases of non-nested hierarhcy in nature. for instance some electric organs suppose to evolve several times convergently. when scientists find such a case that doesnt fit with the nested hierarchy they just "solve" this problem by claiming that this trait evolved several times convergently:

(image from How Evolution Gave Some Fish Their Electric Powers)

2) by the fact that we find nested hierarchy in vehicles too. but we know that it doesnt prove any evolution:

so bottom line: not only we find examples of non hierarhcy in nature, we also find such hierarchy in designed objects. so nested hierarchy prove nothing.

Exactly! I was saving point #2 for later We see it in designed objects.

 

[Saucy]

Ding. Ding. So not everything in the OP was a lie! I was correct when I said somebody would post this graph in response.

Maybe I was right on some other things too, huh Saucy?

I said evolution was a lie. I'm sorry you took that personally.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Isn't there evidence that life just suddenly and spectacularly appeared on earth? I think it's called the Cambrian explosion.

Oh. Apparently we need to start at the basics.

The Cambrian Explosion was over a billion years after the origin of life.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I said evolution was a lie. I'm sorry you took that personally.

No harm, no foul. Its all good.

I have had people say worse things about me than that the entire content of my post was a lie.

 

[Saucy]

You'd be wrong in that. Generally people who understand science know that it's definitely not "100% absolute truth".

What science is, however, is the best method we have for understanding the natural world and universe in which we inhabit. From that understanding that we derive useful applications and technologies which contribute to our own standards of living and general well-being. And believe it or not, this includes biological evolution.

So whether you personally accept the findings of science is completely irrelevant in this regard. Science marches on.

But if I don't accept it as if it's 100% truth, then I'm some creationist idiot, right? I mean, that's how we get treated when we prefer to seek out other explanations. This whole thread is trying to pass off a theory as if it's 100% fact, and if I don't agree with the premise, knowing that this particular 'idea' will pass and another will take its place, then I'm just not intelligent I guess.

The OP is already trying to take pot shots at me to discredit me verses what I post.

 

[Saucy]

Oh dear. Apparently we need to start at the basics.

The Cambrian Explosion was over a billion years after the origin of life.

You don't need to start at the basics. I used to be a staunch atheist and defender of evolution, until I realized how it's 100% mathematically impossible. I understand the basics. I just disagree with them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I understand the basics. I just disagree with them.

I wouldn't brag about that.

 

[Speedwell]

But if I don't accept it as if it's 100% truth, then I'm some creationist idiot, right? I mean, that's how we get treated when we prefer to seek out other explanations. This whole thread is trying to pass off a theory as if it's 100% fact, and if I don't agree with the premise, knowing that this particular 'idea' will pass and another will take its place, then I'm just not intelligent I guess.

The OP is already trying to take pot shots at me to discredit me verses what I post.

You just told a big fib in this very post about evolution. 'What do you expect to happen?

Suppose I posted, "Christianity is a stupid religion. Christians believe that Jesus was an Olympic figure skater and that we're all going to Heaven on ice skates." What would your reaction be? Would you take "pot shots" at me?

 

[section9+1]

I am Christian so I don't believe this, but if the argument were true then it would have to be admitted that since humans are also animals, it is obvious that some people groups are further up the evolutionary ladder than others. We really do have superior and inferior humans from an evolutionary standpoint. To deny this would be to deny the argument.

 

[Speedwell]

I am Christian so I don't believe this, but if the argument were true then it would have to be admitted that since humans are also animals, it is obvious that some people groups are further up the evolutionary ladder than others. We really do have superior and inferior humans from an evolutionary standpoint. To deny this would be to deny the argument.

What argument? That some creatures are "more evolved" than others? That argument is a crock of crap and nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

But if I don't accept it as if it's 100% truth, then I'm some creationist idiot, right? I mean, that's how we get treated when we prefer to seek out other explanations. This whole thread is trying to pass off a theory as if it's 100% fact, and if I don't agree with the premise, knowing that this particular 'idea' will pass and another will take its place, then I'm just not intelligent I guess.

Again, you can believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want. There is no legislative requirement I'm aware of to accept the Theory of Evolution.

But your own personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) aren't going to change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is an integral part of the modern biological sciences, is taught as such, and even has real world applications in various fields (medicine, agriculture, etc) derived from the underlying theory.

 

[pitabread]

I am Christian so I don't believe this, but if the argument were true then it would have to be admitted that since humans are also animals, it is obvious that some people groups are further up the evolutionary ladder than others.

There is no "evolutionary ladder". That's an outmoded view of biological evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

This whole thread is trying to pass off a theory as if it's 100% fact, and if I don't agree with the premise, knowing that this particular 'idea' will pass and another will take its place, then I'm just not intelligent I guess.

The OP is already trying to take pot shots at me to discredit me verses what I post.

In what way does the theme of the OP, "I conclude that nested hierarchies are evidence for evolution," imply that all who disagree are idiots?

 

[doubtingmerle]

2) by the fact that we find nested hierarchy in vehicles too. but we know that it doesnt prove any evolution:

Answered in detail in the OP.

 

[Saucy]

In what way does the theme of the OP, "I conclude that nested hierarchies are evidence for evolution," imply that all who disagree are idiots?

All you have to do is look at the reaction creationists get, even on Christian forums. We're all treated like idiots because how dare we question almighty science!

 

[Saucy]

Again, you can believe (or disbelieve) whatever you want. There is no legislative requirement I'm aware of to accept the Theory of Evolution.

But again your own personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) aren't going to change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is an integral part of the modern biological sciences, is taught as such, and even has real world applications in various fields (medicine, agriculture, etc) derived from the underlying theory.

I'm all for investigating our world. I'm fine with science creating theories, even if I think it's wrong. I just think science has become to militant and elitist. It can't accept that maybe, somewhere along the line, maybe they got something wrong. Or could be explained in a different way. Every scientist, even the creationist ones, go to work with a biased mind.

Do you think if a scientist ever came forward and said, "Wow, this has led me to believe we were created by God!" that they would ever be taken seriously ever again? I mean, again there are PhD level scientists who are creationists, but no one gives them any credibility. We give more credibility to Bill Nye with his bachelors just because he's on TV and calls himself a science guy. We let guys like Al Gore create false documentaries and hold them up as fact, even though every prediction he made didn't happen.

 

[Speedwell]

All you have to do is look at the reaction creationists get, even on Christian forums. We're all treated like idiots because how dare we question almighty science!

Nobody cares what you believe, any more than we care that Seventh Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underpants. The problem comes when you want to teach your doctrine in the public schools as science. And so we are here, arguing about it. But that's not what you are being treated like an idiot for. That comes from your attempts to argue against evolution while knowing almost nothing about what the theory of evolution actually claims for itself and what evidence science takes as confirming it.