Does Evolution Matter?

[whois]

Is the scientific community {especially the biologists} taking any notice of the sources you site or is it just you?

it's kind of obvious it's being noticed, it's being published in respected sources.

. . . likewise I would not go to the local vicar or pastor to find out about evolution.

why on earth do you think my sources are "creationist"?
haven't you even bothered to look at them?

my aim here is not to "destroy" evolution, but in fact point out the facts of it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

(please note my bold)

You are right............

Evolution does not matter as far as evolution is concerned because it will continue to do it's thing regardless of how we think or feel, evolution dictates that I will die one day no matter how I feel about it or wish it was not going to happen.

Indeed.

Evolution will continue on it's merry way, whether some choose to learn and understand it or not.

The trend is clear though, more and more people do accept the theory and there is a high correlation between higher levels of education and accepting it, which makes perfect sense.

Actually, it wasn't evolution that dictates sandybay will die one day. It's just how it's been since the earliest times.
We don't have all the facts about what sort of traffic might have come gone to our planet, but I'm sure if we do ever uncover something in the future -- it might add a priceless top to this rather brutal blood cake we are eating.

Yes, bhmste, I agree. Though I must point out that some Calvinists don't find that embracing it douses their enthusiasm about God, angels and the resurrection of the dead.

(scuse me for barking at the ants)

 

[bhsmte]

it's kind of obvious it's being noticed, it's being published in respected sources.

How has it impacted the Phd biologists in the field and their view of whether evolution happened or not?

my aim here is not to "destroy" evolution, but in fact point out the facts of it.

Well, you claimed a few posts ago, that Darwin's theory has been discredited, yet, the scientific community seems to think otherwise.

Also, every source you have listed so far (Mcclintock, Nobel) also agree evolution happened, yet you claimed the theory has been discredited. Does this mean, you disagree with your sources and their opinion that evolution happened?

 

[bhsmte]

College graduate: "Hey, I paid good money to believe this stuff."

Or, I paid good money to acquire knowledge.

Acquiring knowledge does tend to impact the conclusions one makes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

it's kind of obvious it's being noticed, it's being published in respected sources.


why on earth do you think my sources are "creationist"?
haven't you even bothered to look at them?

my aim here is not to "destroy" evolution, but in fact point out the facts of it.

You will find here that anything that is used to show some area of evolution being questioned you will run into the "creationist" come backs. That is true of scientists that come out with something that opposes current Darwinian Evolutionary thought as well. When Gould and Eldredge came out with Punctuated Equilibrium it was not readily accepted and they had to deal with resistance to their premises. That is why this state of being in Science can harm Science. IF the evidence is not allowed to carry Science wherever it leads it will die.

 

[whois]

Well, maybe the poster in question will be able to one day, disprove evolution and walk away with the Nobel prize.

that's the problem right there.
nobody is trying to "disprove" anything.
darwin was wrong, it's that simple.
the question now becomes what is the right way
noble and the integrated biology pieces are both excellent sources in regards to all of this.

 

[whois]

You will find here that anything that is used to show some area of evolution being questioned you will run into the "creationist" come backs.

and there is no sense in it, i do not call these people atheists.
i think it's clear that i am not a creationist.
i even allude to that in my introductory thread.

That is true of scientists that come out with something that opposes current Darwinian Evolutionary thought as well.

what's worse is that it seems to support the biblical account.
all i can do is shake my head saying "no, it can't be", but it is.

When Gould and Eldredge came out with Punctuated Equilibrium it was not readily accepted and they had to deal with resistance to their premises. That is why this state of being in Science can harm Science.

science must also give the benefit of doubt, especially in a reasonable argument.
science knew that finding the fossils was going to take a long time.

IF the evidence is not allowed to carry Science wherever it leads it will die.

evolution is here to stay, there is no question about that.
but it won't be yer daddys plan.

 

[Oncedeceived]

and there is no sense in it, i do not call these people atheists.
i think it's clear that i am not a creationist.
i even allude to that in my introductory thread.

I feel you have made your position clear that you are not a creationist. I am a creationist but not in the way that people here define it.

what's worse is that it seems to support the biblical account.
all i can do is shake my head saying "no, it can't be", but it is.

You can admit that since you don't have a worldview based in either position. You look at the information objectively.

science must also give the benefit of doubt, especially in a reasonable argument.
science knew that finding the fossils was going to take a long time.

In the 30's and 40's Goldschmidt (can't remember his first name) thought that gradual evolution was not being seen in the fossil record and he didn't think that it was due to the fact the fossils hadn't been found yet. His ideas were ridiculed at the time. People just felt the fossils would be found. Then Gould and Eldridge come along and actually verify his ideas. Even then there was resistance and some refused to accept them.

evolution is here to stay, there is no question about that.
but it won't be yer daddys plan.

UH...what?

 

[Davian]

One thing I would do Lewis if I were you and just learning about evolution. For a basic understanding about evolution the standard Evolution 101 gives you the needed information about what evolution is about. However, there are two kinds of conversations or dialog of Darwinian evolutionists. The public dialog that claims that there are no problems and it is all fluid and very well understood. Then there are the scientific papers on evolution that do a great job of describing the scientific problems that are found in researching certain aspects of it.

Science has changed in the last forty years or so, evidence led where it would and science would follow. It seems to me that now if there is evidence that would cast a bad light on evolution it is only discussed in the research papers and no mentioned in any public dialog. ID science is shunned just as Galileo was in his day. Science is ultimately harmed whenever ideas are squashed and people refuse to allow free thought.

"The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the notion that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

The structure of the argument is "A is in X and Y, B is in X, therefore B is in Y":

They made fun of Galileo, and he was right.
They make fun of me, therefore I am right.

It is freakishly common among creationists and global warming denialists alike against the evil scientific consensus."

Galileo gambit - RationalWiki

 

[Oncedeceived]

"The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the notion that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

The structure of the argument is "A is in X and Y, B is in X, therefore B is in Y":

They made fun of Galileo, and he was right.
They make fun of me, therefore I am right.

It is freakishly common among creationists and global warming denialists alike against the evil scientific consensus."

Galileo gambit - RationalWiki

I am always amazed by the time you spend on sites that perpetrate such things.

 

[Davian]

I am always amazed by the time you spend on sites that perpetrate such things.

Indeed, but I do what I can here to counter them.

 

[bhsmte]

that's the problem right there.
nobody is trying to "disprove" anything.
darwin was wrong, it's that simple.
the question now becomes what is the right way
noble and the integrated biology pieces are both excellent sources in regards to all of this.

Considering Darwin's work was 150 years ago, likely he did have some things wrong, wouldn't you think?

Now, when it comes to the crux of his theory, it has only been strengthened over time.

You deny this and go against the scientific community, that has had 150 years to blow his theory out of the water and haven't been able to.

So, I ask again; did Nobel and Mcclintock agree or disagree, that evolution happens?

 

[whois]

I feel you have made your position clear that you are not a creationist. I am a creationist but not in the way that people here define it.

i honestly don't know what to believe.

You can admit that since you don't have a worldview based in either position. You look at the information objectively.

correct, i don't buy either side.
they are both wrong in my opinion.
matter does not become alive, there is no such thing as an intelligence without substance.

UH...what?

evolution is here to stay. simple.
science has to have some kind of system to classify life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Indeed, but I do what I can here to counter them.

Yes, strawmen are always much easier to counter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i honestly don't know what to believe.

I believe that is true.

correct, i don't buy either side.
they are both wrong in my opinion.
matter does not become alive, there is no such thing as an intelligence without substance.

What do you mean intelligence without substance, you've said this before?

evolution is here to stay. simple.
science has to have some kind of system to classify life.

The theory has aided us in many endeavors in the medical field that would have not happened if not for the study. I believe however that the reason that there are many areas that evolution does not explain is that evolution is not the entire story and when you leave out pieces of the puzzle you will always have only part of the picture.

 

[whois]

What do you mean intelligence without substance, you've said this before?

i have seen no examples that fit the definition of intelligence without the associated substance.
all examples of intelligence i can think of can ultimately be traced to an organism somewhere.

The theory has aided us in many endeavors in the medical field that would have not happened if not for the study. I believe however that the reason that there are many areas that evolution does not explain is that evolution is not the entire story and when you leave out pieces of the puzzle you will always have only part of the picture.

there is no question that heredity works or genes do this and that.
evolution really needs to be renamed biodiversity or genetic diversity.
evolution implies a slow, gradual process, and that simply isn't the case, not even close to it.
but we do need to get a handle on it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

i have seen no examples that fit the definition of intelligence without the associated substance.
all examples of intelligence i can think of can ultimately be traced to an organism somewhere.

Intelligence comes from intelligence throughout all of life's history. A life form of one kind or another and its level of intelligence is passed on from its parent life forms. I ask how a process that is mindless, without purpose or plan, having no goals working only with mindless matter could produce intelligence. It seems to me that it makes much more sense to conclude that an Intelligent Being gave rise to that intelligence rather than mindless matter.

there is no question that heredity works or genes do this and that.
evolution really needs to be renamed biodiversity or genetic diversity.
evolution implies a slow, gradual process, and that simply isn't the case, not even close to it.
but we do need to get a handle on it.

Why would it need a new label? It is just a label, the process whatever you want to call it remains the same.

 

[whois]

Intelligence comes from intelligence throughout all of life's history. A life form of one kind or another and its level of intelligence is passed on from its parent life forms. I ask how a process that is mindless, without purpose or plan, having no goals working only with mindless matter could produce intelligence. It seems to me that it makes much more sense to conclude that an Intelligent Being gave rise to that intelligence rather than mindless matter.

as crazy as it sounds, i believe life will ultimately be reduced to an equation, just like einstein did when he integrated all of cosmology.
there's strong evidence that life has an influence over some experiments in quantum physics.
this in itself implies life is a force of some kind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

as crazy as it sounds, i believe life will ultimately be reduced to an equation, just like einstein did when he integrated all of cosmology.
there's strong evidence that life has an influence over some experiments in quantum physics.
this in itself implies life is a force of some kind.

Yes, the Double slit experiment. This fits more cohesively with God being outside of His creation and matter being a created element. imho

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the Double slit experiment. This fits more cohesively with God being outside of His creation and matter being a created element. imho

How so? All that the double slit experiment demonstrates is the dual nature of matter. And light too, for that matter. If you let a single photon through at a time it will still form a diffraction pattern. The light interferes with itself as it "goes through both slits at the same time".