Evolution happens

[Buzzard3]

The mechanism is mutation and selection.

Talk is cheap. Face it, there's no way to test the theory that the evolution (assuming it's eventrue) is the result of natural selection acting on mutations. All you've got is a story.

It can be tested.

You've yet to explain how. So far all you've done is parrot the Darwinist credo that mutations and selection are responsible for the evolution of the eye.

You seem to want to be able to reproduce the entire historical development of the eye in a lab, which of course would be ludicrous.

You seem to want to reduce science to story-telling. A theory that can't be tested is not science - it's just a story.
Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

We need to be able to show that a genetic paths can exist, and that there are genetic relationships in the various types of eyes that support such paths.

... which has nothing to do with testing the theory that those genetic paths are the result of a process of natural selection and mutations.

 

[Buzzard3]

Here's the only question that matters regarding Dr. Bechly:

Does Bechly use creationist ideas in his scientific publications or book from CUP?

What do you mean by "his creationist ideas"?

I know that none of the articles published at evolutionnews.org are based on some interpretation of the Bible. In fact the Bible is never mentioned - their arguments are based on science.

 

[Buzzard3]

Humans are not that much more intelligent than chimps...

Wow. It's bizarre comments like that reinforce my opinion that Darwinism is fake science..

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I agree that evolution - the change in allele frequencies that occurs over time within a population - is a demonstrable fact.

Excellent. Now the next step is you demonstrating why this mechanism is not the explanation for the diversity of life as the genetic and fossil evidence supports.

Okay ... as long as you do the same thing.

If you can point out a point where I have ignored scientific evidence in favour of my own convictions, I will make every effort to abandon that conviction.

Common ancestry is the best scientific explanation for the fossil record, yet there is also evidence that contradicts common ancestry (ignored by Darwinists). A so-called theory based on cherry-picking the evidence is rubbish and an insult to science.

That would be your cue to present this evidence...

My understanding is, Punctuated Equilibrim is not testable, in which case it isn't science, but just a story.

No it's a scientific theory. It's an explanation for repeatable and examinable evidence.

So, your understanding is flawed.

Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?

Not particularly. Technology is difficult and for most of human history the business of survival didn't leave them with the population and resources to experiment with what led to more advanced technology, agriculture or domestication.

The fact that some cultures never developed these things indicates that we shouldn't expect them to happen on a particular schedule.

Wow. It's bizarre comments like that reinforce my suspicion that Darwinism is fake science..

Chimps really aren't that different from humans with problem solving and already have very rudimentary tool use.

If it's fake, present the evidence... you've alluded to it many times in different ways, but never follow through.



I'm very curious what you believe about the Homo sapiens species. You apparently believe in the physics and geology that demonstrate that the species has existed for 300,000 years... do you think they were miraculously transformed comparatively recently to line up with an interpretation of the Genesis narrative and timeline?

 

[Buzzard3]

Excellent. Now the next step is you demonstrating why this mechanism is not the explanation for the diversity of life as the genetic and fossil evidence supports.

Why would that be the next step?

No it's a scientific theory. It's an explanation for repeatable and examinable evidence.

So, your understanding is flawed.

Please explain how the theory of Punctuated Equilibrim is tested.

If it's fake, present the evidence... you've alluded to it many times in different ways, but never follow through

Is it possible to have a rational scientific discussion with someone who says something like this: "Humans are not that much more intelligent than chimps"?

 

[Buzzard3]

I'm very curious what you believe about the Homo sapiens species. You apparently believe in the physics and geology that demonstrate that the species has existed for 300,000 years... do you think they were miraculously transformed comparatively recently to line up with an interpretation of the Genesis narrative and timeline?

I don't believe that humans have existed for 300,000 years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll post these all together (for a second time since CF ate my reply unexpectedly)

"evolution" could mean microevolution or macroevolution (eg, mammals evolving from fish). The former is a demonstrable fact; the latter is not. One needs to make the distinction to avoid confusion.


Btw, you didn't answer my question, so I'll try again:

How do you test the theory that eyes, for example, evolved via a process of mutations and natural selection?

Macroevolution is just lots of microevolution added together. We can also see it in the fossil record clearly with animals that show distinct morphological similarities between each other. It's not a big secret.

As for the eyes, @Yttrium beat me to it, but we can easily look at animals that exist today with varying degrees of morphological complexity in them and then extrapolate that data and compare it with what we know in the fossil record to see how eyes evolved.

Oh, so a mutation occurred that suddenly provided "a resistant outer layer" and another mutation occurred that suddenly provided "light reactive photosensors"?

Your main problem with this is your use of the word 'sudden'. Evolution isn't sudden. It's not *snap of the fingers* resistant outer layer, or *snap* light reactive photosensors. It's a consistent process of trial and error, where the genes that allow those mutations to occur are selected for in the gene pool by natural selection, while the organisms that don't have those genes die out or are replaced by those that do.

Who's made that claim? Not me.

I've seen your comments after I replied to that post and all heavily seem to suggest that you think that as soon as humans appeared on the scene when paleontological evidence tells us we do, we should have immediately been starting fires, domesticating animals and building civilization. Which the evidence tells us we did not.

 

[Astrid]

What about the scientists at evolutionnews.org?
In addition to them there are quite a few other scientists who are creationists.

For clarity, I should have said " directly".
Of course there are scientists who are creationists.
For example, Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology.
Do you have an example to cite?

Important details include, scientist in what field?
The oft - cited lists of creationist scientists are full
of engineers, mathematicians, doctors, and divers
fields that offer no qualification for opinions on biology / geology.

Another detail of interest is, why do they reject ToE?

None evidently have any actual data based reason, certainly
no Nobels handed out, nor a ripple in the pond.

Also- returning to Dr. Wise, there is something a lot worse than
being clueless, which is intellectual dishonesty.

If you can direct me to a scientist or anyone else who is creationist,
well informed and intellectually honest, I will be most interested.

I hold that it is impossible to simultaneously be well informed,
creationist, and intellectually honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hold that it is impossible to simultaneously be well informed, creationist, and intellectually honest.

As long as they're saved, I don't care if they're dumber than a hay rake.

Hell is full of mensans.

 

[Astrid]

Talk is cheap. Face it, there's no way to test the theory that the evolution (assuming it's eventrue) is the result of natural selection acting on mutations. All you've got is a story.

You've yet to explain how. So far all you've done is parrot the Darwinist credo that mutations and selection are responsible for the evolution of the eye.

You seem to want to reduce science to story-telling. A theory that can't be tested is not science - it's just a story.
Have you ever heard of the scientific method?

... which has nothing to do with testing the theory that those genetic paths are the result of a process of natural selection and mutations.

Talk is cheap all right.
You nor anyone who implicitly claims to know more than
any scientist on earth has one datum point of disproof.

That is how its done. Data.
Have you heard of the scientific method?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean by "his creationist ideas"?

I know that none of the articles published at evolutionnews.org are based on some interpretation of the Bible. In fact the Bible is never mentioned - their arguments are based on science.

You seemed to be claiming that Bechly was an example of a scientist who was a creationist. So my question is very simple:

Does Bechly use the ideas of creationism in his scientific publications?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You must be some kind of brainiac! Do you have an unusually large head?

Lol! No. I have a degree in human biology and an interest in evolution.

... but don't expect me to agree wih everything you say ... when I finally get around to reading it all, that is.

Try to remember that you'd not be disagreeing with me as such - I didn't discover any of this - you'd be disagreeing with the accumulated knowledge of tens of thousands of dedicated scientists checked for errors by their competitors in the field.

If you're going to disagree, you'll either need some new evidence to support your view, or a different interpretation of the existing evidence that is at least as consistent and explanatory as the current one. The chances of either are remote unless you're an expert in the field.

A more productive approach would be to ask for more detail and/or explanation of any parts you have a problem with. I can't promise to answer all questions, but I'll try to help with questions asked in good faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you heard of the scientific method?

Is that that process that gets thrown to the wind when it best suits the pitchers?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that that process that gets thrown to the wind when it best suits the pitchers?

No, you're thinking of something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you're thinking of something else.

I had things in mind.

Reasons why scientists are willing to tell the scientific method to take a hike:

1. to rig a vote in their favor -- (IAU vote to demote Pluto)
   
2. sloppy rush jobs -- Thalidomide, Florida footbridge disaster
   
3. to appease their employers/sponsors -- (LSD, tobacco, Hindenburg)
   
4. to keep from having to investigate before they communicate -- (automatic denial of Biblical events)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I had things in mind.

Reasons why scientists are willing to tell the scientific method to take a hike:

1. to rig a vote in their favor -- (IAU vote to demote Pluto)
   
2. sloppy rush jobs -- Thalidomide, Florida footbridge disaster
   
3. to appease their employers/sponsors -- (LSD, tobacco, Hindenburg)
   
4. to keep from having to investigate before they communicate -- (automatic denial of Biblical events)

And none of those have anything to do with the scientific method.

 

[AV1611VET]

And none of those have anything to do with the scientific method.

I've asked this before, and I think it's a good question:

Is INVESTIGATE BEFORE YOU COMMUNICATE part of the scientific method?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've asked this before, and I think it's a good question:

Is INVESTIGATE BEFORE YOU COMMUNICATE part of the scientific method?

That would count as observe stage of any scientific endeavour, so yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would count as observe stage of any scientific endeavour, so yes.

So, for instance, when someone tells me I've never [whatever], and I clearly have, they aren't being scientific, are they?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, for instance, when someone tells me I've never [whatever], and I clearly have, they aren't being scientific, are they?

Funnily enough, the scientific method really only applies to scientific inquiry, not every day life.