Fairytale?

[Aron-Ra]

There may be a creator or there may not. The fact that it cannot be tested for or against not only keeps scientists from using it as an hypothesis but it is precisely because you the believers have never once proposed a testable God that could be verified in any reproducible way.

And yet, I'll bet you believe in the fairy tale of evolution.

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively. And since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

 

[FoeHammer]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively. And since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

fairytale​

noun
a story about fairies; told to amuse children
an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse ​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fairytale​

Simple(?) Life-form to Human evolution cannot be demonstrated nor tested... evo-fundies will not even attempt to begin to explain it from the beginning over in the ''enlighten'' me thread... care to give it a go?

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Simple(?) Life-form to Human evolution cannot be demonstrated nor tested... evo-fundies will not even attempt to begin to explain it from the beginning over in the ''enlighten'' me thread... care to give it a go?

Once again, you're citing a couple of the many foundational falsehoods of creationism; that evolution must be (1) atheistic, and (2) must include abiogenesis. Neither is true. Evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and is only an explanation of biodiversity, not the origin of life -with or without God. Understand?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Simple(?) Life-form to Human evolution cannot be demonstrated nor tested... evo-fundies will not even attempt to begin to explain it from the beginning over in the ''enlighten'' me thread... care to give it a go?

FoeHammer.

If you stay with the topic, I will give it a go.

Geologist prospective though.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Simple(?) Life-form to Human evolution cannot be demonstrated nor tested... evo-fundies will not even attempt to begin to explain it from the beginning over in the ''enlighten'' me thread... care to give it a go?

I must apologize. It seems I misread your original post. Yes, simple life-forms to human evolution can be tested and not just with the fossil record either. We also have systematic taxonomy and genetic orthologues for cross-confirmation.

 

[FoeHammer]

Once again, you're citing a couple of the many foundational falsehoods of creationism; that evolution must be (1) atheistic, and (2) must include abiogenesis. Neither is true. Evolution is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and is only an explanation of biodiversity, not the origin of life -with or without God. Understand?

I understand, you don't... obviously. I want nothing in regards to abiogenesis I've made that plain enough... start from the point at which you believe evolution began.
IMO evolution is atheistic... who honestly takes theistic evolutionists seriously other than theistic evolutionists that is?

FoeHammer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I understand, you don't... obviously. I want nothing in regards to abiogenesis I've made that plain enough... start from the point at which you believe evolution began.

OK. My area of interest is taxonomy. That alone stands as very profound evidence of human evolution from more simplistic life-forms. How do you explain the fact that we humans still belong to every taxonomic grouping we ever evidently evolved from?

IMO evolution is atheistic... who honestly takes theistic evolutionists seriously other than theistic evolutionists that is?

Coincidentally, how could I take anyone seriously who automatically rejects any and all evidence against him, and believes in magic instead? How could I seriously consider anyone's man-made mythologies as collectively infallable? That's not even possible. But if there is a god, which I concede there could be, then that being may have designed and guided evolution, but it certainly could not have, and would not have created the universe with an incantation spell the way your favorite fairy tale implies.

 

[KCfromNC]

I understand, you don't... obviously. I want nothing in regards to abiogenesis I've made that plain enough... start from the point at which you believe evolution began.
IMO evolution is atheistic... who honestly takes theistic evolutionists seriously other than theistic evolutionists that is?

FoeHammer.

I think you have this backwards. The only people who don't take theistic evolutionists seriously are people with a misguided theological devotion to the heresy of literalism. I don't have any problems with their ability to separate faith and science into their proper roles. It's certainly a lot less hypocritical than creationists who attack science as atheistic on internet chat rooms using computers, or who attack science as godless but then rush to the doctor when they get sick.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think you have this backwards. The only people who don't take theistic evolutionists seriously are people with a misguided theological devotion to the heresy of literalism.

Creationism is a form of idolatry, wherein adherants are unable to distinguish doctrine from deity.

 

[gluadys]

Simple(?) Life-form to Human evolution cannot be demonstrated nor tested... evo-fundies will not even attempt to begin to explain it from the beginning over in the ''enlighten'' me thread... care to give it a go?

FoeHammer.

Actually, this sort of question betrays a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is about.

The theory of evolution is not about the history of evolution. The theory does not, in principle, predict the history.

The theory of evolution is about the process of evolution--about how evolution happens.

I take it you actually have no difficulties with the process of evolution. You understand about mutations and variation and natural selection and speciation. Right? And you agree this has all been observed, so we know that evolution happens and how it happens.

Now what is the relation of the process to the history of evolution?

1. The process of evolution presumes a history of evolution. From the existence of the process we can infer that today's species are descendants of earlier species and that they can be grouped via their relationship to common ancestors among those earlier species.

What that does not tell us, however, is which species are closely related to each other via a recent common ancestor. That is information we have to reconstruct from morphological, paleontological and genetic evidence.

Note, however, that the theory of evolution is not affected by whatever particular history we reconstruct. If the evidence showed that humans were more closely related to seals than to chimpanzees, that would still be consistent with the theory of evolution. (It would imply that we have a different bodily configuration than we do, but it would still be a theoretical possibility.)

2. What applies to recent evolutionary history also applies to more remote evolutionary history. Just as in genealogy. Once we have grouped siblings according to their common parent, we can then group these groups by common grandparent, then group the larger groups by common great-grandparent, as far back as a universal common parent (e.g. mitochondrial Eve or chromosome Y Adam).

So with species.

Now what the theory tells us is that whatever historical reconstruction we end up with, it will take the same form as a family tree---namely a nested hierarchy. The theory does not, in itself, tell us where the phylogenic tree is rooted. (It doesn't even tell us if there is only one tree or several). And it doesn't tell us in what directions it will branch or which species past or present will be on which branches. That is information we have to reconstruct from the data. But, what the data tells us about the history does not affect the theory---unless and until we have data that sits outside the nested hierarchy.

Any history of species' ancestry that respects the form of nested hierarchy would support the theory of evolution.

So we do not have to confirm the particular history we have reconstructed in order to validate the theory of evolution.

The standard phylogeny supports the theory of evolution because it is a nested hierarchy, and because the same nested hierarchy is confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. But any biological nested hierarchy would do the same.

3. Once we have a relatively certain partial reconstruction of the history of evolution, we can use the theory to predict how the unknown portions of the history can be filled in. This is akin to knowing that if a train went from Montreal to Toronto, it must have passed through Kingston on the way.

So, once it was fairly clear that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, we could imaginatively envision what sort of species would exist during the transition from land to water and predict that somewhere in the fossil record we would be likely to find such species. And lo and behold! we have found such species.

One can even get more detailed. One of the key changes that would have to occur in whale evolution is changes in the ear to go from the poor hearing terrestrial animals have in water to the excellent underwater hearing of whales. Study of intermediate fossils show exactly the sort of changes in the ear predicted by the theory.

Even more spectacular was the successful prediction of an early species in the fish->tetrapod lineage which led to the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae.

In addition to being able to predict from partial evidence what we will find at various points in the fossil record, researchers studying how viruses mutate are now beginning to predict successfully how the flu virus will mutate in the future so that we can be prepared for next year's flu bug with the appropriate medication.


So to get back to your question. It is not really a question about whether evolution happened in the past. The multiple lines of evidence supporting the standard phylogeny do that already. What you are really asking is whether we have reconstructed the phylogeny correctly. But that is neither here nor there with validating the theory of evolution.

Have we reconstructed the phylogeny correctly? In part, yes. And parts are still unknown and parts will need correcting as we get new data. What is important is that all of the known data supports the standard phylogeny.

Furthermore, the only theory that predicts a phylogeny such as the standard phylogeny is the theory of evolution. I say "such as the standard phylogeny" rather than "the standard phylogeny" because the theory does not predict the particular history of evolution on earth. It predicts a history.

If we ever find another planet with evolving biological life on it, we can predict from the theory of evolution that it too will have a history in the form of a nested hierarchy. But we will have no idea what that history was until we start reconstructing it.

So the kind of question you are asking, while valid in determining exactly what the history of evolution was on earth, really does not impinge on the theory of evolution at all.

 

[LittleNipper]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively. And since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

Define exactly what you mean by evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

Define exactly what you mean by evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[Latin volti, voltin-, from voltus, past participle of volvere, to unroll; see evolve.]
evo·lution·al, evo·lution·ary (-sh-nr) adj.
evo·lution·ari·ly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

There are lots of online dictionaries. Why don't you bookmark this one?

 

[Aron-Ra]

Define exactly what you mean by evolution.

When I say, "evolution", I am referring only to biological evolution; a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. That is the only definition I know for that term in the context of these conversations.

I find that creationists consistently use the word, "evolution" incorrectly. Because they don't they don't have a problem with evolution. Their issue is with common ancestry, and that is only because their real problem is with science itself, not just the conclusions of science, but its methods as well; all of them.

 

[Edx]

Gluadys FoeHammer really doesnt deserve that amount of time devoted to an answer.

 

[Aron-Ra]

since there are no magic spells or talking animals in any aspect of evolution, as there are in most fairytales including Genesis, then exactly what do you think qualifies evolution as a fairytale? And do please be specific.

noun
a story about fairies; told to amuse children
an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse ​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fairytale​

So, by this definition, how would evolution count as a fairy tale? Especially being completely plausible and providing explanations, where creationism only gives self-contradicting excuses? Are you saying Darwin wrote about fairies? Did any evolutionary scientist propose fairies were involved in anything, ever?


As always, the creationist argument is hopelessly wrong. Regardless, your definition is wrong too. Rapunzel, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel & Gretel, the Fisherman's Wife, and the Bremen Town Musicians are all categorized as classic fairy tales and none of them have any fairies in them. Wikipedia gives a more applicable definition:

A fairy tale or fairy story is a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events.​

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But it doesn't apply to evolution at all, can it? Care to try again?

 

[Aron-Ra]

A fairy tale or fairy story is a fictional story that usually features folkloric characters (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, witches, giants, and talking animals) and enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events.

That describes the Bible quite nicely, doesn't it? But it doesn't apply to evolution at all, can it? Care to try again?

Hello? FoeHammer? WarEagle?

If evolution is a fairy tale, then explain how it counts as one. If it is not, then WarEagle should be good enough to retract his false allegations.

 

[RichardT]

Aron-Ra, I really liked your paleontology website. (but I lost it now, do you still have the link by any chance?)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra, I really liked your paleontology website. (but I lost it now, do you still have the link by any chance?)

Thank you. Is it here?
http://locolobo.org/

 

[RichardT]

Thank you. Is it here?
http://locolobo.org/

Yes. Thank you good sir.

 

[The Bellman]

Hello? FoeHammer? WarEagle?

If evolution is a fairy tale, then explain how it counts as one. If it is not, then WarEagle should be good enough to retract his false allegations.

That would require honesty. He is, after all, a creationist.