Challenging Evolution

mrversatile48 said:

ET poppycock is full of "primitive forms..more advanced forms"

Racist rhubarb needs rooting out

Click to expand...

Where does modern TE speak about more or less primitive forms of Homo sapiens sapiens? You're just trying to start trouble.

Tomk80 said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but the picture was not put forward as proof of progress onward and upward (and away we go...). It was put forward as proof of a solid chain of fossils showing their is no clear deviding line were a skull is clearly chimpansee or clearly human. It shows this transition. The upward and onward interpretations is yours, and yours alone.

Click to expand...

No it's not, Tom

I've heard African friends, down the decades, called names I won't repeat, & heard that being justified by ET being supposedly incontravertible fact

If you are the post-er of the series of skull shots, I accept your word that you didn't mean it in that way

I live 30/40 miles from Oldham, Burnley, Manchester - known in UK for race riots & high profile anti-terror operations - & other bitterly divided towns where the BNP neo-nazis are forever trying to stir up race war, so I hope readers can understand the perspectives that such experiences bring

God bless!

Ian

Ishmael Borg said:

Who views evolution as a ladder or chain? You need to update your understanding of the theory. Please show us the documentation for the Afro-Caribbean and Asian response you refer to. And then show us what presentations they were responding to.

Click to expand...

I know what Ian is alluding to. During the Victorian period we saw an advent of attempts to use science to justify racial inequality. For a while it worked, but it is important to look at it in more detail and see why it worked and why it was later brought down .

These attempts were born from a background of western imperial societies seeking to justify differential treatment of various human ethnic groups (although they would have used the term race then). In addition the idea of racial differences would have tied in rather neatly to the Georgian and Victorian love of classifying everything in a hierarchical manner.

What we now refer to as the “scientific racist” movement really got started with Samuel George Morton and his Crania Americana in which he published his conclusion based upon his work with measuring Cranial capacity of various skulls from various “races”. He claimed that because people of other races had smaller skulls they where obviously less intelligent. Now there are a number of problems with Mortons work, the most glairing being the obvious inductive leap that a relatively minor difference in cranial capacity would translate to a noticeable difference in intelligence. Since we now know that people with larger heads are not inherently smarter than those with smaller ones, Mortons inductive leap looks rather silly. Another obvious flaw was that Mortons sample size was small, he seemed to have come to his conclusion in advance and, in fact, the skulls of the Masai are generally larger than the skulls of the Caucasians, but he inexplicably didn’t notice that when he classified black Africans as a single “race“.

I should point out here that although Mortons claims fell from grace in the inter war years he was extensively debunked by Steven Jay Gould in 1981. (Gould was an evolutionist by the way).

The scientific racist movement gained momentum in the early 1850s with the publication of the races of Man by John Knox and The Inequality of Human Races by Count Gobineau. Taken together these books formed the basis for an argument that “race” was the basis for all cultural, literal and artistic achievement and that races could be split into the “Culture creators” (innately superior to all other races of man), the “Culture Bearers” (who where inferior to the creators but still a good long way up the evolutionary ladder) and the “Culture destroyers” who where considered the basest of human racial stock. Gobineau and Knox found their work widely accepted by western imperial societies who sought excuses to treat other, colonised native populations, differently to European ones, a fact the theologians at the time were only to happy to go along with.

In the interwar years the Parkinsons scholars guide produced a taxonomic table of the races of man that placed all human races into 5 primary races (White, Yellow, Brown, Red, Black), further delineating each into others. Popular culture accepted this taxonomic table, although many scientists objected even then.

However by the 1930s evolutionary scientists were attacking the taxonomic approach on all sides, complaining the divisions were arbitrary, untrue to the theory and tended to promote unsavoury political ideology. So when Ian tells us he left school in 1966 that is 30 years after evolutionary science began to debunk the taxonomic approach and promote a less racist claim that humans are pretty much humans and the term “Race” was no longer considered synonymous with “Ethnicity”.

In the natural sciences, taxonomic classifications of race were largely made taboo by the associations with the Nazi party (who, I should point out had revived older taxonomic theories already in general decline by their era). If anything the Social and not the natural sciences retained a semblance of scientific racism for longer, as Hans Eysencks controversial studies into IQ and educational performance attest. By the 1970s however Eysencks work was also largely debunked when it was pointed out that the IQ tests he used where culturally loaded.

Ghost

mrversatile48 said:

No it's not, Tom

I've heard African friends, down the decades, called names I won't repeat, & heard that being justified by ET being supposedly incontravertible fact

If you are the post-er of the series of skull shots, I accept your word that you didn't mean it in that way

I live 30/40 miles from Oldham, Burnley, Manchester - known in UK for race riots & high profile anti-terror operations - & other bitterly divided towns where the BNP neo-nazis are forever trying to stir up race war, so I hope readers can understand the perspectives that such experiences bring

God bless!

Ian

Click to expand...

In that environment, are you not also aware of Muslim militants in the UK who are actually against human rights and against personal freedoms; who wish to overthrow Democracy and allow Islam to dominate every government at the omission and eradication of every competing religion? Do you see how the integration of church and state in still-free and Democratic nations sort of paves the way for the Islamic agenda?

While the creation issue deeply divides Christianity, and threatens to increase its rate of decline, Islam continues to be the fastest growing religion in the world, and is expected to soon eclipse the entire Christian collective, (all denominations included). Sooner or later, even Christian creationists are going to be my allies, and together we will all be pleading to regain freedom of (and from) religion, and the re-separation of church and state. But by then, I fear, it will be too late.

mrversatile48 said:

ET poppycock is full of "primitive forms..more advanced forms"

Racist rhubarb needs rooting out

Maybe I need to repeat too, for Alf Garnet clones, that many Olympic champions are Afro-Caribbean

& that, despite al the wars, famines, epidemics, etc, African Christians are the most joyful, exuberant, enthusiastic folk I know

I recall the '70s when many Brits felt that menial jobs were beneath them & they were only too happy to leave them to immigrants, out of sheer laziness/arrogance

Many of those immigrants worked diligently, saved up money & opened businesses

Many are doctors, & our NHS would grind to a halt without them

They have much to teach us in many ways, & many are physically, mentally, emotionally & spiritually fitter than many Brits

Click to expand...

Ian your entire argument is a disgusting and despicable example of the fallacy of emotive language. The theory of evolution is not a racist theory, it was evolutionists and not creationists who attacked scientific racism successfully and brought it down. You are trying to dishonestly claim it is a racist theory when its not. According to evolution all human ethnic groups are Homo Sapiens Sapens and so none are more primitive than any other.

mrversatile48 said:

Got a problem with that?

Click to expand...

Do you want to know what I have a problem with Ian? I have a really big problem with white Anglo Saxons trying to co-opt the struggle against racism that those of us who are not white Anglo Saxons have endured. Don’t you dare try and tell me what it is like to be racially abused, I have had it first hand all my life thank you very much. I don’t need a second hand account of it from some one who is using it as a bargaining chip in a debate, that's just low.

Ghost
(About half way down the taxonomic table he mentioned in his earlier post)

mrversatile48 said:

I've heard African friends, down the decades, called names I won't repeat, & heard that being justified by ET being supposedly incontravertible fact

Click to expand...

this is of course, a misuse of Evolutionary theory, just as the justifications for black slavery based on the bible in the deep south of the US were a misuse of the Bible. trying to tar evolution with something that evolution isn't responsible for won't help your cause at all. That being said, I think you are being exceedingly rude here. as you can see several people are engaged in a conversation with razelflabben, and it is very impolite of you to distract the thread with your posts. If you want to talk about something not related to the thread, please do so in another thread, you wouln'd just butt into someone's conversation on the street would you? so don't do it here please.

mrversatile48 said:

I live 30/40 miles from Oldham, Burnley, Manchester - known in UK for race riots & high profile anti-terror operations - & other bitterly divided towns where the BNP neo-nazis are forever trying to stir up race war, so I hope readers can understand the perspectives that such experiences bring

Click to expand...

Oh I understand it just fine, we have a strong national front round these parts too and they just love to point out how;

“If God had meant the rag heads to be our equal he would have saved them too, but he didn’t since they are all Muslims...blah blah blah".

So don’t tell me about racism Ian, I have experienced it first hand by people who will use any excuse, any excuse at all, and round here they can mostly be found in church every Sunday but I don’t try and make out all Christians are racists because of it, that would be intellectually dishonest and as outright insulting to those of us who have been the victims of racism as your trying to pretend evolution is racist.

Perhaps I should put you on ignore, you have clearly been trying to stir up descent and hatred for some time with your ever escalating emotive language, I guess since calling people who accept evolution loonies didn’t work you thought you would call them racist instead, funny that they aren’t the ones playing the race card, you are.

Ghost

mrversatile48 said:

No it's not, Tom

I've heard African friends, down the decades, called names I won't repeat, & heard that being justified by ET being supposedly incontravertible fact

If you are the post-er of the series of skull shots, I accept your word that you didn't mean it in that way

I live 30/40 miles from Oldham, Burnley, Manchester - known in UK for race riots & high profile anti-terror operations - & other bitterly divided towns where the BNP neo-nazis are forever trying to stir up race war, so I hope readers can understand the perspectives that such experiences bring

God bless!

Ian

Click to expand...

I can understand you being more alert to it, or even more irritated by it. What I cannot understand is blaming evolution for it. Whatever viewpoint of superiority has been held, christianity on this point is just as guilty as evolution. Any theory, philosophy or religion will be used in a negative way if people think that is furthering their cause.

What highly disappoints me in your latest posts is that you cannot seem to make this difference and are attacking evolution on something it is not (a racist philosophy). That is something which makes me angry. I hope you understand, and stop making these attacks. People who are using evolution to justify racism do not understand evolution. Learn this, than you can attack the people doing it all the more efficiently.

DJ_Ghost said:

You really don’t understand the theory of evolution at all do you? It predicts that SOME branches on the evolutionary tree will die out not all. Evolution only ends when ALL LIFE ends. Some species will become extinct if the theory is correct. So saying it is false because species become extinct shows a failure to understand it.

Click to expand...

Saying that I said it is false because species become extinct, shows a failure of yours to read and understand my posts. In fact, many times over I have said that it does not falsify the TOE. What it does do is bring into question the validity of the theory. The TOC can and does explain why branches on the evolutionary tree die out. I have not heard and explaination from the E as to why it occurs, though I have heard people say that the theory does not know all the mechanisms. The bottom line, this does not offer overwhelming proof of any theory. Which is the point of the thread.

You brought it up not me. I am pointing out why eye witness testimony is the least reliable since you made the false claim that its not.

Click to expand...

I did not say it was reliable, but it does offer proof. Take for example the case of the recent cave discovery suggested to be evidence of John the Baptist. If an inscription is necessary for there to be sufficient proof that John used the cave, then we can also say that we need more proof than what we have to call the TOE truth, more truth, overwhelmingly supported, etc. That is the point. So let me ask you a question, if eye witness is the least reliable, why do we seek eye witnesses? Or, is it that eye witnesses along with other evidence makes such strong case, that we can call it overwhelming evidence?

Well first off that isn’t true, there is a very high profile case in the UK just now where some one was in fact convicted on just the blood splatter evidence. However that is by the by, and mostly me being pedantic. The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution we have at all, as several people have pointed out in this thread and others. We have actually observed speciation, Jet Black and Lacuspa can tell you more.

Click to expand...

I would like to hear more about this case that has no body, no suspect, no motive, no weapon, and only blood evidence but is able to make a case and convict someone. How did the blood prove who was the victum and who what the suspect? How did the blood provide motive? I can figure out how the blood could have suggested a weapon, but I would think that the weapon based on the blood alone would have been a broad possibility, How did they narrow it down? This truely is interesting! No body, no victum, no weapon, no motive, and still we know who did it and can convict them on blood evidence alone. I am anxious to know how this was done! I have never heard of such a thing, even in the movies they require more evidence than simple blood splatters.

Just as well its not the only evidence we have then.

Click to expand...

Join the race to provide further evidence that is 1. not related to the fossil record and 2. is unique to the TOE

We know what you are telling us, and we are telling you that you are wrong because the fossil record is not the only evidence for the theory. Your argument is built on a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Put you money where your mouth is, but remember, for it to be valid evidence to constitute overwhelming evidence, it must meet the two criteria above, or it is not considered overwhelming evidence which is what you are trying to prove.

Your argument is clear to me and always has been, but its based on false assertions, as you have been told and as people have patiently explained.

What you have seen is irrelevant, that is the scientific method and people have been actively trying to falsify the theory for 150 years. The fact that you haven’t noticed does not mean it has not happened. Also, every time a falsification attempt fails, the theory grows stronger, naturally the falsification attempts slow down as people see fewer and fewer points of weakness and can come up with fewer points that would falsify it that have not already been tested and/or ruled out by previous attempts. The reason you don’t see us doing it here now, on this forum at this second is because it has been done so often there is little to no room left for us to do it. Believe me, the second any scientist thinks he has identified a way to have another crack at it he will be off doing just that with his eye firmly on the Noble prize he knows he will get if he succeeds. Everyone who has tried has failed, everything we can think of that would falsify the theory has been tried. THAT is why we have a good, sound reason to think the theory is correct, but the second something else that may falsify it comes along it will be looked into.

Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure of this, when I made posts on this thread that questioned the theory of E based on the scientific observations, the results were less than favorable, which would suggest just the opposite, and BTW, according to the above criteria you have given, would be overwhelming proof that science does not attempt to disprove the TOE. Now I personally would like to give you and the other E the benefit of the doubt and assume that the problem is one of communication break down but, that becomes ever increasingly hard to do. If the theory of E is open to science disproving it, then, it would stand to reason that challenge would be welcomed rather than critisized. Maybe you should discuss the issue with the other E here before you get back to me on it, so that you have a good solid explaination for the reactions I got when I challenged the theory.

No I would not care to change my statement one iota, the modern scientific method has been falsificationist not verificationist since Karl Popper. If you do not believe me then look it up and find out and you will quickly understand why I do not wish to change the statement. My statement was correct, falsificationism requires that we try to falsify a theory rather than verify it. As Lacuspa pointed out you can always find evidence to support a theory, the real test is in being unable to find evidence that will falsify it.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly why the E who claims overwhelming evidence should react calmly to challenge rather than rudely and attack like a pack of hungry hyenas every time a challenge is presented. A challenge should not leave the challenger feeling stupid, but rather enlightened at the knowledge he has gained, if indeed, the theory can withstand the challenge.

This forum is full of examples of falsifications of the theory of creation, also does it not strike you as odd that most major Christian denominations would have abandoned the theory of creation if it had not been resoundingly falsified?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by the last statement about christian denominations. I do know that a careful study of the original theory as put forth in the book of Gen. reveals a theory that can stand up to most if not all the evidence presented that supposedly falsifies the theory. Christian denominations bore me as much as this thread does, simply because most if not all, claim one thing but live by another. This double standard troubles me terribly and I will refute it as often as I can.

The book explains why modern science is falsificationist and not verificationist, it goes into detail on the whys, wherefores and history. It explains the modern scientific method, falsificationism, and the history thereof. I pointed you at it only because I feel Smith explains these more clearly than I do.

Ghost

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying what you wanted me to learn from the book.

razzelflabben said:

Saying that I said it is false because species become extinct, shows a failure of yours to read and understand my posts. In fact, many times over I have said that it does not falsify the TOE. What it does do is bring into question the validity of the theory. The TOC can and does explain why branches on the evolutionary tree die out. I have not heard and explaination from the E as to why it occurs, though I have heard people say that the theory does not know all the mechanisms. The bottom line, this does not offer overwhelming proof of any theory. Which is the point of the thread.

Click to expand...

I thought it would be blindingly obvious why species became extinct.

Join the race to provide further evidence that is 1. not related to the fossil record and 2. is unique to the TOE

Click to expand...

done that already, but then you said that it was linked to fossil evidence when it is not. it is also unique to the TOE, because there is no way TOC could predict phylogenetic trees based on ERVs and ALU sequences.

Jet Black said:

Another demonstration of speciation is that of ring species. In ring species the animals are located around some geological feature, such as a mountain range or the whole planet. each species can breed with it'S neighbour, since there are only very small differences between them and their neigbour. However at the ends of the species exist two groups that cannot breed with one another, since the accumulated behavioural and genetic differences are too large to allow breeding to occur between the ends of the ring species.

Click to expand...

I have that one down too, easy to picture.

razzelflabben said:

I have that one down too, easy to picture.

Click to expand...

good, then you should be able to see that small genetic differences can build up into large genetic differences and these may result in speciation. If we took a tractor and ran over all of the israeli naked mole rats in the middle of the population, then the ends would be totally isolated from one another genetically and would never be able to breed with one another again - speciation in other words.

gluadys said:

The mule doesn't evolve. Evolution requires the ability to reproduce. Left to itself the mule becomes extinct.

But the horse and donkey can both continue to reproduce and to evolve.

If they become even more different from each other than they are now, the time will come when they cannot even produce a mule when crossbred.

But they can still continue to reproduce each on their own, and to evolve each on their own.

The fact that they can produce a mule today is an indication of recent common ancestry. From the perspective of evolutionary history it is not so long ago that we had only one donkey/horse population that was entirely inter-fertile. Now we have two separate populations and it is not possible for a mating between them to reliably produce fertile offspring.

Therefore the evolution of each group (horse and donkey) will proceed separately in the future.

Consider a family tree comparison. Great-great-grandpa Jones lived in Wales with all his children. They all lived in the same village, and could easily visit with each other. After a couple of generations (to avoid inbreeding) some of his great-grandchildren might even marry each other.

But then young David Jones and his wife moved to London. Visits became rare. The London-Joneses had to communicate with the Welsh Joneses by letter or telephone instead of daily visits. Their children grew up knowing friends and neighbours in London, not the clan in Wales, and after a generation or two the two groups seldom correspond.

David's brother, Hugh emigrated to America. For that family, communication with both the original Welsh clan and the London-based clan was even more difficult and expensive. After a few generations, the American Joneses don't keep in touch with their British cousins at all.

Same with horse/zebra/donkey. We start out with one common population (HZD). But, just like David and his family, part of the group separates and becomes the donkey group. And just like Hugh and his family, another part separates and becomes the zebra group. And communication (mating) between them becomes rarer, more sporadic and more difficult and may cease altogether.

But, of course, each group is still in close communication (inter-fertile) with other members of its own group, so each group can still continue to evolve separately from the others.

Click to expand...

Right, but this does nothing to close the hole that offers the possibility that E does not happen. Don't you see, things like ring species and other speciations, do nothing to prove the TOE only to prove the possibility of E. Sometimes you people post to me like I was an idiot that doesn't understand what you are saying. I do understand it, I get it very well. Can't alway quote it back to you, because I see it. It is in seeing it, that questions arise, because it is more than an explaination. I can explain away anything, that is the nature of debate, but to see it, feel it, test it, manipulate it, is a wonderful way of evaluating the evidence. Your post, does nothing more than suggest the possibility of E, which has already been proven and accepted, in fact, that would have been an easy arguement to get into. What is does not do is offer overwhelming evidence for the TOE especially when one realized how compatable the evidence is to the original TOC. You know, that theory that has repeatedly been falsified, that is compatable with the evidences you present.

here is my hippy flares guide to speciation. I will provide an updated one with flowers if requested.

the point of geographical separation is noted, and the colour represents the genetix mix of the members of the population. as we can see, they end up totally different - IOW different species, while always being similar to their own group.

t is time.

/me is really confused as to what would convince razzelflabben now

USincognito said:

I don't have any comments to this thread in reply to my previous comments since they've gone unreplied to (razzelflabben - no beef, and don't bother, you've already replied to more expansive posts), but I just want to make the following comments - I am humbled by the intellectual prowress of the members currently viewing this thread.

Click to expand...

My most humble apologize, I am trying to answer everyone. But alas I am a mere human and sometimes I miss things. I'm sorry.

razzelflabben said:

You know, that theory that has repeatedly been falsified, that is compatable with the evidences you present.

Click to expand...

how is TOC compatible with the matched phylogenies of ERVs, ALUs, Chromosomal banding sequences, Fossils and Biogeography?

Jet Black said:

true, but nobody is saying this happens. please note:

population A splits into populations B and C, perhaps by a river forming or something, it doesn't matter. at this stage, if we try to breed a member of B and C, they will breed successfully. now over time, B and C will gradually accumulate changes to their genome, and eventually those changes will be such that a member of population B can no longer breed with a member of population C. we can see this spatially in some american salamanders, the black headed gull, and the israeli naked mole rat.
false, a population does not always start with two individuals. That is like saying that America was colonised by only two people, and all the people in America today are descendents of those two people.
most single celled organisms reproduce asexually. there are however many intermediates between asexual reproducers and sexual reproducers. for example many bacteria transfer genes to one another. certain algae and so on can merge cells together and then split off again, mixing DNA. many organisms produce one generic type of gamete which fuses with another gamete and so on.
again no. It is a rather grey area as to whether we consider early life as a single organism or not. Lucaspa posted several references in a different thread I think about protocells, in which many protocells are created on one pan of amino acids. so from here we see that a number of organisms could spawn life.

again, the earliest organisms are asexual reproducers, so there are no reproduction problems.

Click to expand...

But somewhere along the way, two completely sexually different creatures would have had to evolve that were compatable in every way reproductively. This would mean, that somewhere along the line, the genes had to split to the point that we have a male and a female that are compatable reproductively and it is where the question to the validity of E lies. A sexual reproduction is no biggy, even the TOC allow for this, but somewhere along the line, two would be required to mate. How big was this first population of male/female reproductive creatures, and how did they evolve as similar enough to reproduce but different enough to allow reproduction?

another quickie problem for TOC:



here we have a comparison between human chromosome 2, and chimp/gorilla/Orang Utan 2p and 2q. Telomeres are structures that exist normally only on the ends of chromosomes, however humans have a telomere structure right in the middle of chromosome 2, where there shouldn't be one. this telomere matches with the telomeres found on the ends of the other great apes. evolution is fine with this, but it is very strange from a TOC perspective... why would an organism be created with telomeres in the middle of a chromosome, when the standard layout is to put them on the ends?

just for completeness, here is the whole chimp/human karyotype

razzelflabben said:

But somewhere along the way, two completely sexually different creatures would have had to evolve that were compatable in every way reproductively. This would mean, that somewhere along the line, the genes had to split to the point that we have a male and a female that are compatable reproductively and it is where the question to the validity of E lies. A sexual reproduction is no biggy, even the TOC allow for this, but somewhere along the line, two would be required to mate. How big was this first population of male/female reproductive creatures, and how did they evolve as similar enough to reproduce but different enough to allow reproduction?

Click to expand...

no, that isn't nescessary actually, we can have the slow accumulation of changes leading to two totally different. See my hippy flares guide to speciation above. Species A and B start off the same (the left and right leg), but over time A accumulates changes that are totally different to B (the legs end up totally different colours). all the members in A or B however are pretty similar to one another (each leg is pretty uniform in colour at any one time t).