Evolution...

Science deals with theories seperatly, not as well this one fails so the other must fail too...*sigh*

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"But you said when it is questioned it fails... but where? "

Macro.

"I already know that you're biased against evolution, "

Actually I started out being pro when I studied it, but it failed, so I think its false now based on my study of it.

Again, you're off topic refering to creation. Just pretty much whining again when people question evolution, but thus is the evolutionist response for the majority.

Click to expand...

How does macro fail?
Also, I don't think I quite understand the last sentence of your last paragraph. What are you referring to with "majority"?

"How does macro fail? "

No evidence of it. Its all theory, and a bad one at that.

as to your last question, the majority of evolutionists will throw a tantrum and say in response to you showing holes in the theory, well creationism is wrong too. Its like when a child wins a race or is proven wrong and he retaliates by degrating the other person to make himself feel better...kinda sad. I have met a few evolutionists that don't do this but they are few and far inbetween, that is why I said majority.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"How does macro fail? "

No evidence of it. Its all theory, and a bad one at that.

as to your last question, the majority of evolutionists will throw a tantrum and say in response to you showing holes in the theory, well creationism is wrong too. Its like when a child wins a race or is proven wrong and he retaliates by degrating the other person to make himself feel better...kinda sad. I have met a few evolutionists that don't do this but they are few and far inbetween, that is why I said majority.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is not quite correct. There is ample evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.

Of course it's all a theory... so are gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. I don't understand your pejorative use of "theory." And is it "bad?" Well, I suppose that is a judgement, but for most scientists, evolution works.

As to offering an alternative, no, I have seen no tantrums at all. Just a question asking what you think is right. And why? Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion.

I think I will just come up with an e-mail, save it, and repost it every time LouisBooth repeats his standard nonsense.

- Speciation has been observed.
- Mutations that create a favorable protein have been observed.
- There are plenty of transitional fossils around.
- Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth.
- In short, virtually every claim made by creationists on this messageboard has already been disproven.

Have a look at www.talkorigins.org, and use the Search function to start examining the mountains of evidence that support evolution.

I have no expectation that this will penetrate the pig-headed ignorance of certain members of this messageboard, but anyone with the desire to know rather than to assume is welcome to get started.

Regards,
Shodan

Pig-headed ignorance? How nice.

"In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.
"

*sigh* untrue statement. Your opinion and assumption, not fact.

"Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion."

again, it is a tantrum, we are talking about evolution, not creationism..read the thread title alrigthy?

"- Speciation has been observed.
- Mutations that create a favorable protein have been observed.
- There are plenty of transitional fossils around.
- Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth. "

*sigh* 1. no it hasn't, no there aren't transitional fossils around, they are fossils that you GUESS to be a tranistional speicies, and lastly I made on comment on carbon dating other then it is a flawed process according to what I have read, that's all (ie can lead to flawed results).


"Have a look at www.talkorigins.org, and use the Search function to start examining the mountains of evidence that support evolution.
"

*sigh* as I said before I have examined several articles on there that are very lenghty. Most if not all say something about if they are wrong intellgent design is right and they assume many many things along the way when drawing their conclusions. That's the problem.


"I have no expectation that this will penetrate the pig-headed ignorance of certain members of this messageboard, but anyone with the desire to know rather than to assume is welcome to get started. "

Hey, my thoughts exactly when I post on evolution... Like I said, most evolutionists are more dogmatic then any people of any religion I have ever seen.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
e: In fact, there is no other way to explain the fossil record.

LB: *sigh* untrue statement. Your opinion and assumption, not fact.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you would know.

e: Please give us a quote or other evidence that you have witnessed a tantrum on this point, or else you are just making an unsupported assertion.

LB: again, it is a tantrum, we are talking about evolution, not creationism..read the thread title alrigthy?

Click to expand...

Nope, just a question. If you cant' answer it that's okay. Well understand.

LB: *sigh* 1. no it hasn't, no there aren't transitional fossils around, they are fossils that you GUESS to be a tranistional speicies, and lastly I made on comment on carbon dating other then it is a flawed process according to what I have read, that's all (ie can lead to flawed results).

Click to expand...

Hmm, you know, I bet a doctor could help that wheezing problem. You have made a lot of assertions. Can you support them?

*sigh* as I said before I have examined several articles on there that are very lenghty. Most if not all say something about if they are wrong intellgent design is right and they assume many many things along the way when drawing their conclusions. That's the problem.

Click to expand...

That's okay. It's fine to admit that you don't understand.

As I said before, nothing is going to get thru to those who deal with evidence by denying its existence.

"I don't believe in evolution because there is no evidence."

"Here's our evidence."

"That's not evidence."

"But it is the reason for our theory."

"Aha! You admit it is just a theory!"

"Yes - a well-supported theory with lots of evidence."

"You haven't shown me any evidence."

"What about these transitional fossils?"

"Those aren't transitional."

"What about potassium-argon dating that proves an old earth?"

"That isn't valid."

"Why do you claim that it isn't valid?"

"It isn't."

"But why do you claim that?"

"You haven't shown me any evidence."

"What about all the observed instances of speciation?"

"Those aren't speciation. Speciation is a change in kind, and that isn't it."

"What do you mean by 'a change in kind'?"

"It isn't MY job to get you your evidence - what about the holes in your theory?"

"What about DNA mapping, that shows species with a more recent common ancestor being more closely related than those without?"

"That doesn't prove anything."

And so on, and on, and on.

All it takes to be a creationist of a certain type is the ability to ignore what is directly in front of you, and to repeat discredited arguments with a straight face. Sooner or later, reasonable people get tired of correcting mistatements, pointing out logical fallacies, and arguing with people who wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them. They then move on, and the creationists can go back to square one with

"I don't believe in evolution because there is no evidence."


Regards,
Shodan

What I don't understand is the allegeded relationship between 'firebrand, politicized 'evolutionists' and 'telling me what to think.'

There are no fiery arguments regarding evolution at universities. It does not happen and more than we debate the angels on the head of a pin.
There are fiery debates when theists try to corrupt scientific curriculums by saying that all views need to be shared, heard, stroked, and coddled.

Well, of course. Science is science. High school science should prepare you for college science; not for an obscure breed of anglophone anti-Darwinist christianity. Does that mean you can't be a student and believe in creationism? No. It just means we aren't going to turn science class into theology class. Believe whatever you will, but teaching ID is just a guise for theism, it is not science, it offers no research opportunities, thus no lab opportunities, and it isn't going to prepare them to become biologists, doctors, or paleontologists.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"How does macro fail? "

No evidence of it. Its all theory, and a bad one at that.

Click to expand...

What exactly would you call "evidence"? Name a standard. Would you like, say, a fossil that shows some characteristics of each of two different classifications in our current taxonomy? Would you like pieces of DNA that are found only in a couple of species, and which have changed more in the species that, according to the fossil record, branched earlier?

What, exactly, would you consider "evidence"? Because anything I can think of as plausible evidence, under normal scientific standards, we've got.

Originally posted by seebs


What exactly would you call "evidence"? Name a standard. Would you like, say, a fossil that shows some characteristics of each of two different classifications in our current taxonomy? Would you like pieces of DNA that are found only in a couple of species, and which have changed more in the species that, according to the fossil record, branched earlier?

What, exactly, would you consider "evidence"? Because anything I can think of as plausible evidence, under normal scientific standards, we've got.

Click to expand...

Normal scientific standards are that you take the thing you are studying and look directly at it. This is impossible with evolution. This is the reason so many people find themselves shocked by this recent push to have it understood as a more or less accepted "fact" in science. I can remmeber a day in my lifetime even when the general consensus in the books I read was "we'll probably never know for sure." Now it's, "we know for sure and not only that, anyone who doesn't believe in it is irrational."

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Normal scientific standards are that you take the thing you are studying and look directly at it. This is impossible with evolution. This is the reason so many people find themselves shocked by this recent push to have it understood as a more or less accepted "fact" in science. I can remmeber a day in my lifetime even when the general consensus in the books I read was "we'll probably never know for sure." Now it's, "we know for sure and not only that, anyone who doesn't believe in it is irrational."

Click to expand...

Where on earth did you get such weird ideas about science? We had the proton/neutron/electron model of atoms for a very long time before we could even distinguish between an atom and its nucleus with any instruments we had.

The model survived, not because anyone had ever seen a neutron, but because the model allowed us to make predictions about chemical bonding, and those predictions were borne out.

All sorts of science is based on indirect observation. We set up lasers and say "If gravity bends space, we should see an interference pattern here". We don't actually see what happens; we just test our theories by looking at the things they effect.

Ever seen the experiment where you send light through two thin vertical slits, and you get weird interference patterns? That's *indirect* observation of light doing wave things.

Twenty or thirty years ago, lots of evolutionary theory was much less established, and crucial supporting evidence had been predicted, but never found. In the intervening time, many of the holes have been filled in.

At this point, there are lots of interesting questions to be explored, but, from a practical science standpoint, there's no real question about the basic evolutionary model. This doesn't mean it *can't* be wrong; it means there's no point in arguing about it until you find *NEW EVIDENCE*. The stuff people like to point at (there was a very long post on one of these threads recently) is all old, rehashed, and long since addressed. There's even a fairly well documented case of someone moving some fossils around to try to weaken the case for evolution - which is dishonest, and I think he should be ashamed.

Keep in mind, we have multiple different ways of checking the dates of fossils - and they generally agree fairly closely. Thus, we have the history well down. We have a lot more fossils now than we did in, say, 1970. We have better technology for analyzing them, and we have *MUCH* better technology for analyzing DNA.

Thirty years ago, no one could tell you how closely something was related except by looking for fossils, or eyeballing it and saying "these look similar". Now, we can look at fossils, say "these should be fairly closely related, but they should both be very different from this guy", and we can *test* this. And, whaddya know, the DNA generally supports the fossil record.

At some point, specific conflicts stop being a weakness in the overall theory, and start merely correcting the details.

"That's okay. It's fine to admit that you don't understand"

hahahahahahaha...okay, that was funny. I have read quite a few articles on that site about evolution and they have been shown to have holes or say, If I'm wrong, then its intellegent design. I pointed this out eariler edgeo, but either you 1. didn't have your glasses on or 2 didn't read it.

"There are fiery debates when theists try to corrupt scientific curriculums by saying that all views need to be shared, heard, stroked, and coddled. "

not really. You haven't been to a college in awhile have you?

"Would you like, say, a fossil that shows some characteristics of each of two different classifications in our current taxonomy? "

Hey, that looks like that, so it must be of the same anestor or related some how...give me a break.

"What, exactly, would you consider "evidence"? "

Just a question...why is it that there are no long periods of change, just short spirts according to the fossil record, and evolutionary theory predicts long gradual changes?

"All sorts of science is based on indirect observation. "

Yes, but the big difference is macro assumes enormus amounts of time passing. That's the difference between this theory and any other theory.

Originally posted by seebs


Where on earth did you get such weird ideas about science? We had the proton/neutron/electron model of atoms for a very long time before we could even distinguish between an atom and its nucleus with any instruments we had.

The model survived, not because anyone had ever seen a neutron, but because the model allowed us to make predictions about chemical bonding, and those predictions were borne out.

All sorts of science is based on indirect observation. We set up lasers and say "If gravity bends space, we should see an interference pattern here". We don't actually see what happens; we just test our theories by looking at the things they effect.

Ever seen the experiment where you send light through two thin vertical slits, and you get weird interference patterns? That's *indirect* observation of light doing wave things.

Twenty or thirty years ago, lots of evolutionary theory was much less established, and crucial supporting evidence had been predicted, but never found. In the intervening time, many of the holes have been filled in.

At this point, there are lots of interesting questions to be explored, but, from a practical science standpoint, there's no real question about the basic evolutionary model. This doesn't mean it *can't* be wrong; it means there's no point in arguing about it until you find *NEW EVIDENCE*. The stuff people like to point at (there was a very long post on one of these threads recently) is all old, rehashed, and long since addressed. There's even a fairly well documented case of someone moving some fossils around to try to weaken the case for evolution - which is dishonest, and I think he should be ashamed.

Keep in mind, we have multiple different ways of checking the dates of fossils - and they generally agree fairly closely. Thus, we have the history well down. We have a lot more fossils now than we did in, say, 1970. We have better technology for analyzing them, and we have *MUCH* better technology for analyzing DNA.

Thirty years ago, no one could tell you how closely something was related except by looking for fossils, or eyeballing it and saying "these look similar". Now, we can look at fossils, say "these should be fairly closely related, but they should both be very different from this guy", and we can *test* this. And, whaddya know, the DNA generally supports the fossil record.

At some point, specific conflicts stop being a weakness in the overall theory, and start merely correcting the details.

Click to expand...

Ever shot two thin laser beams at the historical origin of life?

The vulgar audacity for you to sit there and pretend you don't understand what I'm talking about... It's not about SIZE, it is about having the circumstance AVAILABLE TO EXPERIMENT WITH AT ALL!!!!!

This is NOT some sort of oddball concern I have. It is fundamental. It is fundamental. It always has been and always will be fundamental.

Since the clasification of fossils has always been on physical similarity, and since DNA determines physical similarity, it is no surprise that things with very similar DNA will turn out to be similar. There is a direct link between DNA and the form of a creature. Whether this is because of actual familial relationships or just because physically similar DNA results in physically similar creatures is not addressed, at least not in public.

You know it's entirely possible all my questions have answers but you guys ignore the question so insistantly it's impossible for me to tell even if there's a good lace to look. I can't BELIEVE that last post. I mean, it is exactly what I'm talking about. QED is TESTABLE. You can do tests on light RIGHT NOW and have results that you can look at. You can't test ancient evolutionary pressures. And the fact is there are evolutionary pressures away from diversity and for it, and you don't know which were in existence in the past.

You just can't test it.

The "predictions" of evolution are indistinguishable from the predictions of simply assuming similar animals will have similar DNA. One more way of saying the exact same thing. Maybe that will help.

Time lines:

I don't have the huge problem with the time determinations some Creationsits have. In fact, I don't even consider myself a "Creationsit" per se, but that's a story for a different thread. But the point is, if you base your timelines on a method for aging something, then compare the animals in the fossil record and determine how far apart they are, then look at their DNA (which is directly related to the form) and determine that the DNA results indicate a time interval related to the original measurements, this is NO SURPRISE. It indicates nothing. The physical form and the DNA are directly related, so the two are not independantly verifying each other.

There's a numbner of ways to run radiometric dating, and these do independantly verify one another to an extent, but certain of the assumptions there (such that the universe has existed long enough for the method to be useful at all) are not applicable to this particular debate, as far as it relates to evolution nor to creation.

The method could be entirely valid but simply inaplicable because the time period is in reality not there.

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Time lines:

I don't have the huge problem with the time determinations some Creationsits have. In fact, I don't even consider myself a "Creationsit" per se, but that's a story for a different thread. But the point is, if you base your timelines on a method for aging something, then compare the animals in the fossil record and determine how far apart they are, then look at their DNA (which is directly related to the form) and determine that the DNA results indicate a time interval related to the original measurements, this is NO SURPRISE. It indicates nothing. The physical form and the DNA are directly related, so the two are not independantly verifying each other.

There's a numbner of ways to run radiometric dating, and these do independantly verify one another to an extent, but certain of the assumptions there (such that the universe has existed long enough for the method to be useful at all) are not applicable to this particular debate, as far as it relates to evolution nor to creation.

The method could be entirely valid but simply inaplicable because the time period is in reality not there.

Click to expand...

This isn't true at all. DNA is more complicated than that. You have much more DNA in common with a (non-twin) brother than you do with someone who looks almost exactly like you. There are animals which *look* very different, but are fairly closely related.

The trick is, if you start placing them into trees, you can conclude that, even though these two animals *look* similar, and have adapted to similar niches, they should have split off millions of years ago... And sure enough, they're fairly different, while species we believe to have split relatively recently tend to be fairly similar.

The connections between change over time based on, say, the age of fossil strata, and the perceived changes in DNA, are very informative, and give strong evidence for the theory of evolution.