Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

stevevw · Nov 16, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
This sounds like you're saying that a person is never supposed to make a decision, isn't that the way it works, to be open to a subject in the beginning until you reach a point where you come to a conclusion on it? Unless I'm taking your post wrong.

Yes sort of. If you look at how science defines what is fact and what is not. They form a hypothesis and then look for any evidence. The more evidence they find the more they will start to determine that the hypothesis becomes a theory. Then that theory is consolidated by more evidence. But it never really is 100% proven and they may say its very likely or they can confidently say its proven.

But on top of this we have to continually be self checking to see where our personal views come into it. They can affect our filtering of the evidence. Its pretty hard to put all personal views and beliefs aside and look at things in plain sight. Especially when it comes to the evolution debate. Even science can be tarnished by preconceived ideas and its not just with religion.

Dirk1540 · Nov 16, 2015

stevevw said:
Its pretty hard to put all personal views and beliefs aside and look at things in plain sight. Especially when it comes to the evolution debate. Even science can be tarnished by preconceived ideas and its not just with religion.

Lol your statement would be equally accurate if you replaced the word 'Even' with 'Especially.'

I have a neighbor who has different beliefs than me. But we are both on the same page that too often arguments are arguments over semantics. Person A says 'God did it' person B says 'Mother Nature did it' and person C says 'Evolution did it.' Before atheism was so popular scientists actually studied the universe for the purpose of 'Finding out how God created the universe.' Again an argument over semantics.

stevevw · Nov 16, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
Lol your statement would be equally accurate if you replaced the word 'Even' with 'Especially.'

I have a neighbor who has different beliefs than me. But we are both on the same page that too often arguments are arguments over semantics. Person A says 'God did it' person B says 'Mother Nature did it' and person C says 'Evolution did it.' Before atheism was so popular scientists actually studied the universe for the purpose of 'Finding out how God created the universe.' Again an argument over semantics.

Yes this is true. Semantics is a good way of putting it and thats what happens a lot of the time. It becomes almost frustratingly funny that we can spend many hours debating over a small bit of detail that is not really that relevant. Or sometimes both parties are really agreeing but are letting a small issue stop them from coming to that conclusion.

A world view will also look for a naturalistic cause to how things happened. So the explanations will fall within those parameters. But this may exclude important perspectives that may add dimensions to our understanding. A world view may cause people to fit the evidence into a particular way which may not explain properly everything thats happening and deny important aspects of what may be going on.And it is the same for not allowing the science to do its work by believing that supernatural forces made everything.

But to be honest I find it interesting and exciting to look at life, and existence through the eyes of science because it allows you to understand things better. I dont mean in a world view of science but just in discoveries and understanding of how the universe works for example. To find out things like it is expanding at an increasingly faster rate. Or it is so finely tuned. We can get to appreciate it for what it is and can wonder at the amazing things that happen.

To me I believe this is a better way to prove God if he is real. Let the evidence speak for itself. But you can't get to that point without the science. In the early days men of religion used science to discover things about God. There were many religious people who discovered many things about life and the universe.

Holoman · Nov 16, 2015

I'm not an evolutionist at the macro level, because I've never studied Biology and so have never seen any evidence for it. I'm willing to take micro-evolution as a given though, as I remember bits and bobs from school and know that it has been replicated by specialised breeding of plants and animals for example.

I'm currently reading the book Darwin's Doubt as I thought it may be interesting, though have to say much of the Biology speak goes over my head and yeh, I've never really had an interest in Biology so am not really fussed either way if evolution is true or not. But it is quite interesting and I'm convinced that many evolutionary biologists are ignoring gaps in the theory because they don't want to give anything away to the intelligent designers, I think they should be more honest with themselves and eachother where current theory is inadequate and try to address it. That said I dislike how many ID proponents jump on gaps and infer God, particularly with specified complexity arguments, I just see this as a massive God of the gaps argument which are always destined to fail when scientific understanding improves.

On the origin of life itself though, I am probably more leaning towards divine intervention than a purely naturalistic explanation, though I dont rule it out completely.

I dont generally believe something just because other people say they have evidence for it though which is why I remain ambivalent towards evolution and can't call myself an evolutionist.

Loudmouth · Nov 16, 2015

stevevw said:
This is the very example I am talking about where the evidence is interpreted differently by those who believe in the theory of Darwinian evolution and those who don't. What we see now in humans with the variations of skin color, size, shapes of heads is the natural variation within the human species.

None of those variations include the variations seen in H. erectus. The modern population does not overlap with H. erectus.

However, each individual within the H. erectus population was a variation within the species of H. erectus, and is still transitional.

These features are passed down from our parents and will mix and change according to who our parents are. But we are not going to change into reptilians or any other new species because of these variations.

Why not?

If variation within a species is a transition between one species turning into another then why do the scientists state that the variations they found with the skulls at Dmanisi Georgia were misinterpreted as being different species.

Do you think a transitional fossil is a one-off, a single organism that is not a part of a population of organisms?

The skulls you are talking about were part of the same species, H. erectus. That species is a transitional species. All three are transitional fossils, and are also variations within H. erectus, but not H. sapiens.

Their variations came within the natural range of homo erectus species. In other words the extremes of shapes that all these skulls had were shapes that evolution had made into another species. That the other species like H. habilis, H. rudolfensis and H. ergaster for example are actually one species. So this wipes out several transitional links that have been made.

All three of the fossils are transitional links.

Evolution needs a lot of transitional links because its a gradual process of morphing small changes in features into a new type and shape of creature. If all humans are classed as one species in the end then evolution has no transitional stages to show how apes turned into humans.

No modern human overlaps with H. erectus or the Australopithecines.

What we see is that you refuse to interpret any data. Instead, all you have is denial. If you think I am wrong, then tell us what features a fossil would need to have in order to be transitional. I am willing to bet $10 that you won't tell us.

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

Paul K said:
Evolution is the theory that life evolved from nothing. (theory: scientific hypothesis yet proven)

A. The theory of evolution says nothing about "nothing". Evolution occurs to extant life on an extant earth.
B. Theories are not hypotheses and nothing in science is ever proven.

Paul K said:
There is no transitional evidence of evolution. all science have is an organism that used to be like that kind, and the next organism that suddenly looks different than the previous one. no slow transition into a newer form of life.

Is this skull "fully ape" or "fully human" and why do you conclude the way you do?

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

whois said:
i have no idea why evolutionists are distancing themselves from abiogenesis.
the formation and addition of genes to the germline are at the very heart of evolution.

The part in bold is true, but that only happens in extant beings that reproduce and pass on their genetic information.

That said, please explain, in detail, how evolution is effected by any of these sources for the origin of life on earth:
- abiogenesis
- fiat creation by God
- panspermia
- hyper-dimensional high school students conducting a science experiment

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

stevevw said:
The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design.

1. "Common design" is an ad hoc argument and thus a logical fallacy.
2. "Common design" is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific proposition.
3. Common descent actually does explain observations like a shared broken GULO gene in primates. How does "common design" explain such a thing?

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

stevevw said:
But the actual tests done for evolution and not speculations or assumptions

Ah yes, Creationist magical words that are supposed to POOF! away the evidence they don't like and can't handle.

Assumptions! Speculations! POOF!

whois · Nov 17, 2015

USincognito said:
The part in bold is true, but that only happens in extant beings that reproduce and pass on their genetic information.

extant beings?
anyway . . .
even the RNA world hypothesis requires the accumulation of "genetic material" that must be passed to descendents.
as far as i know, not even this has been accomplished, much less the transition to DNA based organisms.
apparently, the RNA world fails because it cannot accumulate enough nucleotides before mutations destroy it.
i imagine that there are other things too that prohibit this hypothesis from ending in success.
evolutionists are basing the beginnings of life on a series of exceedingly unlikely events.
and then turn around and say "we don't believe in miracles".

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

whois said:
extant beings?

That's what I wrote. Do you need me to explain it to you?

whois said:
anyway . . .{snip}

Actually I'd like you to answer my question before moving on to other things.

USincognito said:
That said, please explain, in detail, how evolution is effected by any of these sources for the origin of life on earth:
- abiogenesis
- fiat creation by God
- panspermia
- hyper-dimensional high school students conducting a science experiment

whois · Nov 17, 2015

USincognito said:
Actually I'd like you to answer my question before moving on to other things.

that's one way of getting out of the dialog i guess.
the dialog in this case being post 24.

USincognito · Nov 17, 2015

whois said:
that's one way of getting out of the dialog i guess.
the dialog in this case being post 24.

Your evasion is noted. I'll be off for a few days, but won't be holding my breath expecting you to step up to the plate.

lewiscalledhimmaster · Nov 17, 2015

Davian said:
Never left, just spend my time more in the philosophy forum.

Okay. Is that a hobby or are you a professional philosopher?

Davian said:
For me, watching people try to make biology into a religious matter is too bizarre, when so many religionists already accept the science.

I guess it's the fact that so many 'religionists'* are engaged in biology etc. (the Sciences) that the novice assumes there is a gate for evangelism and propagation of their particular religious denomination's ideology etc.

---
*- a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot : MW Online Dict. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionist

Gallup: Religion: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

lewiscalledhimmaster · Nov 17, 2015

SkyWriting said:
90%, I am. There are those "Origin" fictions that are malarkey.
The testable rest is just fine.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_02

'...."Origin" fictions....' You'll need to elaborate.

lewiscalledhimmaster · Nov 17, 2015

stevevw said:
I guess thats a reflection of the amount of research and time I put into the topics. I dont just rely on my own versions of things and give one or two sentence answers with my opinion only. The posts get longer and longer because some break down what I say into points and I respond to that one by one. I know I probably carry on but I feel that a detailed answer is needed to back up what is said.

I dont know what you mean by being open to things. I have a certain view based on the evidence. Sometimes when I am debating one particular person for some time it can get more involved because thats where it progresses to. You have to give a more clarified and detailed answer as you go along I believe. I have stated that I believe in a certain level of evolution so I am not being one sided. I am open to any possibility but like everyone I do have my personal beliefs which I try not to let get in the way. That is why you rarely see that I am using God and religion in my replies but using the scientific evidence.

Thanks for your reply. You have a few options, which might help to streamline your posting (i.e. reduce the volume --- as most readers use their hand-held devices --- and too many words amount to a bad thing -- esp. huge diagrams and video footage all into one post -- apart from the fact that it does come across as an attempt to bombard the thread) i.e. you could upload your colossal replies to a forum-blog or a Word Press blog -- alt. write a book and get it published, peer-reviewed and such --- then you would be engaging your ideas more aggressively and also narrow down the arguments to actual and not-actual etc. I think you know what I mean?

Yes, I noticed you avoid 'summoning the divine' etc. A good practice in in this forum -- as it just ends up 'clogging the arteries' --- and we don't want any Atheists blowing off steam!!!!

lewiscalledhimmaster · Nov 17, 2015

Dirk1540 said:
This sounds like you're saying that a person is never supposed to make a decision, isn't that the way it works, to be open to a subject in the beginning until you reach a point where you come to a conclusion on it? Unless I'm taking your post wrong.

I think generally it's a good idea to remain open when it comes to the Sciences --- the hard line of I am 100% right and you are therefore wrong isn't a very healthy state of mind.

lewiscalledhimmaster · Nov 17, 2015

stevevw said:
The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design. What is seen as a transitional can also be seen as natural variation with a species. What supporters of Darwinian evolution say proves evolution which is gradual changes through mutations and natural selection happens but it is limited to within species. So they turn that ability into evolution being able to make big scale changes beyond species. Whereas those who believe Darwinian evolution is false say it doesn't have the ability to make those big changes and there is no evidence. So believers in evolution will look for things that support the theory and only see things that support the theory. Those who dont support the theory will say that there is plenty of evidence that evolution isnt acknowledging that contradict evolution. So its a constant battle of interpretations.

USincognito said:
1. "Common design" is an ad hoc argument and thus a logical fallacy.
2. "Common design" is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific proposition.
3. Common descent actually does explain observations like a shared broken GULO gene in primates. How does "common design" explain such a thing?

whois said:
that's one way of getting out of the dialog i guess.
the dialog in this case being post 24.

post 24:

whois said:
i have no idea why evolutionists are distancing themselves from abiogenesis.
the formation and addition of genes to the germline are at the very heart of evolution.

USincognito said:
Your evasion is noted. I'll be off for a few days, but won't be holding my breath expecting you to step up to the plate.

Don't stay away too long.

stevevw · Nov 17, 2015

USincognito said:
1. "Common design" is an ad hoc argument and thus a logical fallacy.
2. "Common design" is not falsifiable and thus not a scientific proposition.
3. Common descent actually does explain observations like a shared broken GULO gene in primates. How does "common design" explain such a thing?

yet there are so many other genes in closely related creatures that break this link as well. Or there are genes that are shared in unrelated creatures which link them closer together. The tree of life has many contradictions and many of the links that have been made and shown to not fit the same pattern that is asserted. The thing is evolution uses an inconsistency with statistics. They will use favorable examples which will support common decent but when they contradict it they will come up with other reasons like convergent evolution or gene hot spots. This is circular reasoning. If it is true there should be a consistence flow of this evidence but there isn't.

The conclusions evolution has come to are not established as fact and new research is showing there are other explanations besides assuming that it proves evolution and common ancestry. There is evidence that gene pathways for gene loss can be favored in independent creatures as well. It seems the same vitamin C loss that is used to link apes and humans together to show common ancestry is also found in not so closely related creatures as well like bats, guinea pigs and passerine birds. The more we will map our genomes the more we will understand how these sequences work.

The Human GULO Pseudogene—Evidence for Evolutionary Discontinuity and Genetic Entropy
Abstract
Loss of the vitamin C pathway due to deletions in the GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase) gene has been detected in humans, apes, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, and passerine birds. Current research and data reported here show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution.
https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...olutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/

Charles Darwin's tree of life, which shows how species are related, is " wrong" and "misleading", claim scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

stevevw · Nov 17, 2015

lewiscalledhimmaster said:
Thanks for your reply. You have a few options, which might help to streamline your posting (i.e. reduce the volume --- as most readers use their hand-held devices --- and too many words amount to a bad thing -- esp. huge diagrams and video footage all into one post -- apart from the fact that it does come across as an attempt to bombard the thread) i.e. you could upload your colossal replies to a forum-blog or a Word Press blog -- alt. write a book and get it published, peer-reviewed and such --- then you would be engaging your ideas more aggressively and also narrow down the arguments to actual and not-actual etc. I think you know what I mean?

Yes, I noticed you avoid 'summoning the divine' etc. A good practice in in this forum -- as it just ends up 'clogging the arteries' --- and we don't want any Atheists blowing off steam!!!!

Thanks for your constructive comments and I will take note of them.

Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Credo

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

a post by Alan Smithee

rational

a post by Alan Smithee

rational

a post by Alan Smithee

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

georgemacdonald.info

inquisitive

inquisitive

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency