Examples

[sfs]

Oh that's funny, I mean really funny, after all the derogatory remarks I have heard about creation scientists, even on this Christian forum. Just take a look here for starters:-
http://creation.com/discrimination-against-creation-scientists

So you think it's bad when others do it, but okay when you do it?

 

[sfs]

I wouldn't - but there must be experts who know enough to be able to give a considered opinion. If this cannot be defined, how can anyone say that macro evolution is occurring? It's then nothing more than an idea with no basis in fact.

Sure, there are experts who can give considered opinions about the evolution of new species. In fact, experts have written whole books about the subject. What experts can't do is answer your original challenge, since it's asking for something that isn't defined scientifically. If you want examples of young species that can still hybridize, or subspecies that are on their way to speciation, that's possible. But evolution between "kinds" can't be illustrated until you tell us what it is.

 

[whois]

I would suggest you stop suggesting derogatory things about people you don't know.

koonin didn't have much of a problem at being "derogatory":
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life. Essentially, this signifies the plurality of pattern and process in evolution; the central role of contingency in the evolution of life forms (“evolution as tinkering”); and, more specifically, the demise of (pan)adaptationism as the paradigm of evolutionary biology. Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift."
-eugene koonin.

 

[whois]

If you want examples of young species that can still hybridize, or subspecies that are on their way to speciation, that's possible. But evolution between "kinds" can't be illustrated until you tell us what it is.

a computer model that models the tree of life at the genetic level would do nicely.

 

[sfs]

koonin didn't have much of a problem at being "derogatory":
At the distinct risk of earning the ire of many for associating with a much-maligned cultural thread, I call this major change the transition to a postmodern view of life. Essentially, this signifies the plurality of pattern and process in evolution; the central role of contingency in the evolution of life forms (“evolution as tinkering”); and, more specifically, the demise of (pan)adaptationism as the paradigm of evolutionary biology. Our unfaltering admiration for Darwin notwithstanding, we must relegate the Victorian worldview (including its refurbished versions that flourished in the twentieth century) to the venerable museum halls where it belongs, and explore the consequences of the paradigm shift."
-eugene koonin.

There is nothing derogatory in that quotation -- nothing that attacks anyone's character. Why would it matter? Is Koonin some kind of authority on appropriate behavior in Christian discussion forums. For that matter, you still haven't told us why you keep quoting Koonin at all. Or who you were accusing of supporting the status quo in goose-stepping sort of way. Or why you quote people like Koonin when you don't accept the basis of their argument. Or what point you're trying to make in any of these threads.

ETA: also, who's a pan-adaptationist here? I'm certainly not. In fact, I've helped write several papers intended to undercut specific claims for the action of natural selection. Which again raises the question: who are your comments aimed at?

 

[sfs]

a computer model that models the tree of life at the genetic level would do nicely.

Models it how? There are lots of computer models of evolving species. And how would that address the challenge in the OP?

 

[whois]

There is nothing derogatory in that quotation -- nothing that attacks anyone's character.

really?
so ol' koonin essentially says, i know there are going to many of you that will hate me for saying this, but . . .
who would hate koonin for what he said SFS?

 

[lasthero]

really?
so ol' koonin essentially says, i know there are going to many of you that will hate me for saying this, but . . .
who would hate koonin for what he said SFS?

Who?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In what way does it work, or perhaps it doesn't and that's why no-one can come up with real evidence for it?

Your request assumes things about evolution that are simply not true.

Implied by your request is the idea of creatures with "half" a wing or "half" a lung or "half" a leg.

Or things like this, the infamous crockoduck:

That's not how it works.
Every creature is a fully formed organism within its species context.

A pinguin doesn't have "half a wing".
An ostrich isn't a creature "on its way to develop flight".

Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.
Speciation doesn't happen overnight either, it takes quite a few generations as evolution is a gradual process.

The "evidence" you demand for evolution is not evidence that would support it. It's evidence that would actually falsify it.

The funny part is that the evidence that you are demanding, indeed can not be found. Guess why.



I'll help: because the evidence we DO find, actually supports evolution - it doesn't falsify it.

What evidence supports it? Take your pick:
- phylogenies
- nested hierarchies
- comparative anatomy
- comparative genetics
- fossil record
- observed mechanisms (natural selection, speciation, mutation, etc).
- ....

Enough angles to approach this.
Off course, if you are completely clueless on how evolution works (as you clearly are), it will be rather diffcult for you to understand why these things support the theory.

I advice reading a good book concerning it.
I can reccomend Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth", which is a book written specifically for people like you.

If you are one of those who doesn't want to read Dawkins because he is "the devil" or something equally juvenile, perhaps try books by Ken Miller. He's an evolutionary biologist and devout christian. Or do you consider such people also to be "minions of Satan"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The trouble is, such peer-reviewed articles are, as far as I am aware, reviewed by others with similar beliefs. I would suggest that not many people are brave enough to go against the main tide of opinion, especially when their reputations and careers are at stake.

I would suggest you dump all technology and go live in a cave, since literally almost everything you have in your home (plumbing, plastics, electronic devices, central heating,...) is the result of peer-reviewed research.

 

[The Cadet]

The trouble is, such peer-reviewed articles are, as far as I am aware, reviewed by others with similar beliefs. I would suggest that not many people are brave enough to go against the main tide of opinion, especially when their reputations and careers are at stake.

You know absolutely nothing about peer review and it would do you well not to denounce the method used throughout literally all of science to ensure that at the very least, the most obviously flawed research gets filtered out.

Oh that's funny, I mean really funny, after all the derogatory remarks I have heard about creation scientists, even on this Christian forum. Just take a look here for starters:-
http://creation.com/discrimination-against-creation-scientists

Care to bring up any particular example from that pack? And then, would you care to explain why the scientific community as a whole shouldn't shun a group of pseudoscientists pushing an idea that we have known to be wrong for some 300 years?

I mean, I'll be honest, if I was an editor of a major scientific publication and I got a manuscript about the shape of the earth from someone I knew supported the Flat Earth Society, I'd throw it in the garbage without a second look. Why not? It's almost certainly wrong, and why should I waste my time with that crap when there are countless authors publishing real, valuable research that actually might have some value to humanity? Creation science is in the same boat (it's wrong, we know it's wrong, and we've known it to be wrong for decades), except with the added bonus that there's some actual debate in the public sphere over its merits despite its utter lack of real viability, despite the complete scientific non-viability of the idea.

Every crackpot idea, from the electric universe hypothesis to the flat-earthers to the 9/11 truthers to the holocaust deniers, makes the claim that that the reason they can't get published in peer-review is because of some conspiracy against them. Because they're being suppressed. Because some orthodoxy is holding them down and afraid to consider their ideas. Every. Single. One. Is it any surprise that the young earth creationists make the same claim? Of course, it's nonsense. It's easy to play the "they're discriminating against me" card. It's a lot harder to actually back your ideas with real research. Maybe if Creation.com took down all the obvious and blatant misinformation on their website, I'd begin to take it seriously when it talks about "discrimination" from the scientific community.

As for your question in the first post, I have no idea what you mean by "kind"; if you mean something like a monkey turning into a human, then you're out of luck, because you're asking for observed evidence of something happening now which should not happen over short periods of time. When we talk about evolution, we're talking about geologic time. Things that simply cannot be observed within a single human lifetime. We have plenty of examples of beneficial mutations. We have plenty of examples of speciation events. But given how broad "kind" can be stretched... Well, let me put it to you this way. If I showed you a species of bacteria splitting into two other species, would you say "it's still bacteria"? If so, congratulations, you have discovered why "kind" is such a meaningless term.

 

[Zosimus]

I would suggest you dump all technology and go live in a cave, since literally almost everything you have in your home (plumbing, plastics, electronic devices, central heating,...) is the result of peer-reviewed research.

Kindly demonstrate that plumbing is the result of peer-reviewed research.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kindly demonstrate that plumbing is the result of peer-reviewed research.

The materials, the filters,...
All those things are the result of accumulation of scientific progress.

Funny, btw, how you singled out only plumbing and conveniently ignored the rest.
Like the technology in your phone, car, computer,....

Yes, I included "plumbing" on purpose. To see if you would zoom in on that part while ignoring the rest. Seems I was right on target.

 

[Zosimus]

You know absolutely nothing about peer review and it would do you well not to denounce the method used throughout literally all of science to ensure that at the very least, the most obviously flawed research gets filtered out.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic.../title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals....

[Some of the journals] were present in the Directory of Open Access Journals, which aims to list credible publications. One example Bohannon highlighted in his report was a journal published by Sage, which was named “the Independent Publishers Guild Academic and Professional Publisher of the Year” in 2012. “The Sage publication that accepted my bogus paper is the Journal of International Medical Research. Without asking for any changes to the paper's scientific content, the journal sent an acceptance letter and an invoice for $3,100,” Bohannon wrote.
--------------------
Yeah... peer review... it ensures that the most obviously flawed research gets filtered out -- at least in the fantasy world in which you live.

 

[Zosimus]

The materials, the filters,...
All those things are the result of accumulation of scientific progress.

Other than your faith-based assertation that it is so, do you have any reason for us to believe so?

Funny, btw, how you singled out only plumbing and conveniently ignored the rest.
Like the technology in your phone, car, computer,....

So you included completely ridiculous things supposedly on purpose to see whether we were paying attention?

Yes, I included "plumbing" on purpose. To see if you would zoom in on that part while ignoring the rest. Seems I was right on target.

Fine. Demonstrate that central heating came about thanks to peer-reviewed research. As far as I know, the ancient Greeks invented central heating long before science, scientific journals, or peer review was around.

 

[The Cadet]

Open Access Journals

Found the problem.

The fact that there are numerous crap journals is not news to anyone. See also: Seralini and Seneff's "research".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Other than your faith-based assertation that it is so, do you have any reason for us to believe so?

Did you think that the formula's to construct the pipes, the materials and the calculations of water pressure etc, were found under a rock?

So you included completely ridiculous things supposedly on purpose to see whether we were paying attention?

No. I included a thing or two of which is isn't as obvious as the rest that there is plenty of science behind making the thing possible.

Fine. Demonstrate that central heating came about thanks to peer-reviewed research. As far as I know, the ancient Greeks invented central heating long before science, scientific journals, or peer review was around.

Do you heat your home the way the ancient Greeks did it?
Or do you rather use a more hi-tech 21st century system?
Where did that 21st century system come from? How was it developed?
Does it perhaps use natural gas? Electricity?

 

[Zosimus]

Did you think that the formula's to construct the pipes, the materials and the calculations of water pressure etc, were found under a rock?

Formulae or even formulas (but never formula's) are created not by scientists but by mathematicians. Skara Brae had water flushing toilets some 3,000 years B.C.E. This has nothing to do with peer review. It's ridiculous to suggest that plumbing came about because of peer review.

No. I included a thing or two of which is isn't as obvious as the rest that there is plenty of science behind making the thing possible.

Again -- aside from your assertion that it is so, what reason do you offer to convince us that this is so?

Do you heat your home the way the ancient Greeks did it?

Well, no, I don't heat my home. However, I tried to Google how the Greeks did it and it appears that they used fire. This is sensible. Were I to heat my home, I would use the same system. Do you seriously think the Greeks used peer review to determine whether fire could heat things?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Formulae or even formulas (but never formula's) are created not by scientists but by mathematicians. Skara Brae had water flushing toilets some 3,000 years B.C.E. This has nothing to do with peer review. It's ridiculous to suggest that plumbing came about because of peer review.

Really? They were building plastic pipes in 3000 BC? Using heavy machinery for precision bending of heavy metal pipes in 3000 BC?

How about that....

Perhaps you should think a little further from time to time.
We build houses and so did the Romans.
To suggest that our construction technology is therefor the same the ancient Romans is downright bizar.

Well, no, I don't heat my home. However, I tried to Google how the Greeks did it and it appears that they used fire. This is sensible. Were I to heat my home, I would use the same system. Do you seriously think the Greeks used peer review to determine whether fire could heat things?

Sometimes, I really don't know if you are serious or just trolling.

 

[Papias]

NBC wrote:

We hear a lot about evidence from the fossil record. ........ I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature.

Um, got your flux capacitor charged up?

To establish that a life form today is going to be a different creature in the future requires going to the future to see the new form of the creature. Thus, your question, which starts out talking about the fossil record, is incoherent. Sorry, but we don't have the fossil record of fossils produced in the future yet.

Your question is also incoherent because you don't define "kind". (Leviticus puts "kind" at the species level - do you accept that scripture?)

We hear a lot about evidence from the fossil record. Supporters of the theory of evolution claim that such evidence supports their beliefs. Supporters of [relatively] recent Divine creation, similarly claim that the evidence from the fossil record supports their beliefs too. Only one of these conclusions can be right, but no-one can actually prove that they have truth and the other side has the error. .... I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters ...

One side could establish they are right if the experts weigh in and state that the fossil record shows one side is right. After all, since none of us are geologists, we'll have to go by the experts - as you sensibly state.

It turns out that practically all geologists agree that the fossil record spectacularly proves evolution, and that the biggest geological society, made up of tens of thousands of scientists, who know the fossil record better than I know my home town.

Here's their statement (there is more of it, including a section that says that the rocks also show that there was never a global flood, that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, etc.) -

The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. Research in numerous fields of science during the past two centuries has produced an increasingly detailed picture of how life has evolved on Earth.

The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth's history. Darwin showed that biological evolution provides an explanation for these changes. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life's evolution has expanded through diverse kinds of research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time — the ultimate test of any scientific construct — but it has been greatly enriched.​

I think your idea to simply ask the experts about the fossil record is a good idea. They gave a clear answer, confirming evolution.

In Christ-

Papias