Macroevolution:

[Obliquinaut]

Am I supposed to understand these things?

Do you believe in chemistry?

It gets to the heart of my original question: how do you determine which science you don't believe and which you do?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Good guess. Do you never ask questions about a subject that you have no degree or training in?

All the time. I'm a professional research scientist. It's part of the job.

But when someone presents me with data in a field that I don't fully understand I normally don't start thinking "Well the countless thousands of professionals who DO understand this are probably just all stupid and my lack of understanding shows me truth that they are all wrong."

 

[Obliquinaut]

Microwave radio, digital radio, fiber optics transmission, electronic switching, unless of course, if a person is not a biology major it is not really science, which I have been told in the past.

No, that's all very much science. And indeed I am surprised at how deftly you seem to ignore data in other sciences. So tell me, did you directly ever observe microwaves? Did you ever see the microwaves or did you simply see the signal the microwaves carried as shown on detectors of some sort? You relied on evidence that convinced you microwaves were real without directly observing them, amirite?

Again, we DO SEE evidence of life forms changing over time. It's pretty much well established in the geologic record. YOU may not like that evidence but that doesn't really feel like it is based on a proper scientific critique of the evidence. It feels more like carving out a special exemption for that evidence.

When I posted the photo of the pakicetus skeleton (you can probably figure out which one it was after your request) it is part of a continuum of skeletons. The hominid skulls similarly show a continuum of development from an earlier ancestor to modern humans.)

But also there are a large number of other avenues of evidence more related to genetics and biochemistry that have been posted now several times.

 

[tevans9129]

Sophistry.

Just cannot answer questions can you SW?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just cannot answer questions can you SW?

Actually he did answer you. It appears that someone dishonestly edited his response to you. That was not proper at all. Here is his full answer to your question:

"Sophistry. You exaggerate the certainty with which scientific theories are presented and then fault science for it. You blame evolution for not being able to explain abiogenesis, but you have no explanation of your own. You whine about science not knowing what happened before the big bang when you don't know, either. What's your point?"

 

[bhsmte]

Just cannot answer questions can you SW?

Why didnt you include his entire response?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who programmed them? Who is this "evolution" person that did all this programming?

Why are humans.... the ones who have the ability to eradicate the whole planet......the ones with the very least and an absolute pathetic amount of this "evolution programmed" behavior patterns?

You don't leave home until 18 years.

Cannot walk for a year.

Cannot clean them selves after going to the washroom or even control their bladder or colon until three years.

Pretty much need our parents continually for 10 years.

Think we know everything by 18.

Sheesh.... you would have thunk we would have at least learned to fly... who would not be in a better spot if we could fly.... but no..... we cannot evolve to fly... we had to build a machine to do it for us..

Same with swimming the ocean.. that would have been nice too..

Sorry, I'll stick with the fact that God made us. Made each creature, just as He wanted it to be.. and:

Saw that it was GOOD.

So, after all that criticism of human 'design', you still believe that God thinks it was GOOD...

I don't know how much you know about human biology, but a even a little will tell you it's not so much 'GOOD', but just 'good enough' - as is to be expected for a product of evolution. An intelligent designer could have done a much better job.

Or is making all creatures great and small - including us - sloppily enough to be mistaken for products of evolution, all part of God's mysterious plan ? - maybe He's got a sense of humour...

 

[Speedwell]

Just cannot answer questions can you SW?

Did you have a question? I thought you were just telling falsehoods about science.

For example, "I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began."

Oh, now I see the question. Pardon me, please. If you are going to teach evolution, then you teach evolution. If you re going to teach abiogenesis, then that's what you should teach, but you're going to have to wait until a coherent theory of abiogenesis is propounded. Or are you going to suggest that we wait to teach what we know about evolution until there is a theory of abiogenesis?

 

[tevans9129]

Why didnt you include his entire response?

Because he ignored my post that he responded to but here you go.

There are many others that have a different answer as to "how it could have happened". I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began. If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?

Sophistry. You exaggerate the certainty with which scientific theories are presented and then fault science for it. You blame evolution for not being able to explain abiogenesis, but you have no explanation of your own. You whine about science not knowing what happened before the big bang when you don't know, either. What's your point?

Does that explain it for you?

 

[bhsmte]

Because he ignored my post that he responded to but here you go.





Does that explain it for you?

Not likely what you think it explains.

 

[tevans9129]

Did you have a question?

Yes, as a matter of fact, but per the usual, you have no answers for my questions as they are asked.

 

[tevans9129]

Not likely what you think it explains.

I would be dishonest if I said that I am surprised.

 

[bhsmte]

I would be dishonest if I said that I am surprised.

Irrelevant.

 

[pitabread]

I am curious as to how science knows exactly how it happened billlllions and billllions of years ago but cannot answer how it began.

I'm not sure what your objection is here. The Earth appears to be over 4 billions of years old and life on Earth has appeared to have existed for almost as long (based on earliest fossil life). It's just the way things appear, what's the issue exactly?

The question as to how it began and that's what they are trying to figure out. Biology is complicated and research takes time; especially given the technological advancements that have been required to make such study possible.

If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?

Huh? Not sure what your point is here.

If you take an introduction to biology class you will certainly start with some of the basics of evolutionary biology. This should include basics of DNA, population genetics, evolutionary mechanisms, basic phylogenetics, and so on.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, as a matter of fact, but per the usual, you have no answers for my questions as they are asked.

Well, I eventually answered your question, but I notice that you did not answer mine.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure what your objection is here. The Earth appears to be over 4 billions of years old and life on Earth has appeared to have existed for almost as long (based on earliest fossil life). It's just the way things appear, what's the issue exactly?

The question as to how it began and that's what they are trying to figure out. Biology is complicated and research takes time; especially given the technological advancements that have been required to make such study possible.



Huh? Not sure what your point is here.

If you take an introduction to biology class you will certainly start with some of the basics of evolutionary biology. This should include basics of DNA, population genetics, evolutionary mechanisms, basic phylogenetics, and so on.

I would bet the ranch, the objection is a strong need to protect a faith belief.

 

[tevans9129]

Microwave radio, digital radio, fiber optics transmission, electronic switching, unless of course, if a person is not a biology major it is not really science, which I have been told in the past.

No, that's all very much science. And indeed I am surprised at how deftly you seem to ignore data in other sciences.

What data are you specifically referring to?

So tell me, did you directly ever observe microwaves? Did you ever see the microwaves or did you simply see the signal the microwaves carried as shown on detectors of some sort?

If I understand what you mean by “observe”, no, I did not see them physically traveling through space but yes, I did see and measure them on a scope.

You relied on evidence that convinced you microwaves were real without directly observing them, amirite?

No, you are not right. They can be generated and can be seen and measured on a scope.

Again, we DO SEE evidence of life forms changing over time. It's pretty much well established in the geologic record. YOU may not like that evidence but that doesn't really feel like it is based on a proper scientific critique of the evidence. It feels more like carving out a special exemption for that evidence.

I will not pretend to speak for others but I have never argued that “life forms” do not change, that would be ludicrous. I simple ask for the “evidence” that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that one “kind” changes into a different “kind”. IMO, if anyone has that evidence, then does it not make sense that there would be a plethora of images that would be in stages of changing from one kind to another kind? If so, where is it? All I get is attempts at getting me to chase rabbits that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

No exemption to it, if, you challenged my belief in microwaves for transmitting data, I could hook up a scope to a MW gen and show you visually the signal and also measure its frequency and level. Can you do something comparable to that with one kind changing to another kind?

When I posted the photo of the pakicetus skeleton (you can probably figure out which one it was after your request) it is part of a continuum of skeletons. The hominid skulls similarly show a continuum of development from an earlier ancestor to modern humans.)

Are you suggesting that a pakicetus skeleton was not an animal that became extinct? If it was, then how could that be evidence of one kind changing into another kind? Do you have an image of the “creature” before the pakicetus skeleton and/or one that evolved from it to some other creature? Where is your evidence for that?

But also there are a large number of other avenues of evidence more related to genetics and biochemistry that have been posted now several times.

I have seen claims made alluding to that fact but I have not seen verifiable evidence that supports those claims. What it seems to boil down to for me is, science makes this argument and since it is science, I must accept it without question. Sorry, but science has not always been correct in its assertions. Make a believer out me, show me how anything can “evolve” from nothing, can you do that? At least without starting after some substantial developments have happened first.

BTW, what I mean by “kind” is, there is a chimp, a monkey, a gorilla and a giraffe in a picture. You show this picture to a normal six year old and ask him to pick out the one that is different from the others, which one do you suppose would be selected? One is definitely a different kind, the others are different but with many similitudes, would you agree?

 

[tevans9129]

Well, I eventually answered your question, but I notice that you did not answer mine.

So you say, can you quote my question and your answer to that question as it was asked?

 

[Speedwell]

So you say, can you quote my question and your answer to that question as it was asked?

"If someone is going to teach others how to build a house, do they start with the floor? If someone is going to teach others about evolution, should they start with the "floor" or the foundation?" (post #224)

"Oh, now I see the question. Pardon me, please. If you are going to teach evolution, then you teach evolution. If you re going to teach abiogenesis, then that's what you should teach, but you're going to have to wait until a coherent theory of abiogenesis is propounded. Or are you going to suggest that we wait to teach what we know about evolution until there is a theory of abiogenesis?" (post #248)

Here is my question: You exaggerate the certainty with which scientific theories are presented and then fault science for it. You blame evolution for not being able to explain abiogenesis, but you have no explanation of your own. You complain about science not knowing what happened before the big bang when you don't know, either. What's your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I understand what you mean by “observe”, no, I did not see them physically traveling through space but yes, I did see and measure them on a scope.

Good, we can observe evolution in much the same way.

No, you are not right. They can be generated and can be seen and measured on a scope.

Then you are saying that we can observe evolution.

I will not pretend to speak for others but I have never argued that “life forms” do not change, that would be ludicrous. I simple ask for the “evidence” that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that one “kind” changes into a different “kind”. IMO, if anyone has that evidence, then does it not make sense that there would be a plethora of images that would be in stages of changing from one kind to another kind? If so, where is it? All I get is attempts at getting me to chase rabbits that has nothing to do with what I am asking.

You should not use undefined terms such as "kind". There is no "change of kind" in evolution. Your children will always be human. Of course that means that you also are an ape.

No exemption to it, if, you challenged my belief in microwaves for transmitting data, I could hook up a scope to a MW gen and show you visually the signal and also measure its frequency and level. Can you do something comparable to that with one kind changing to another kind?

No, he used microwaves to demonstrate that evolution is observed.

Are you suggesting that a pakicetus skeleton was not an animal that became extinct? If it was, then how could that be evidence of one kind changing into another kind? Do you have an image of the “creature” before the pakicetus skeleton and/or one that evolved from it to some other creature? Where is your evidence for that?

Sadly it appears that you do not understand how you observe microwaves. By the way, you are attempting to move the goalposts. That is as much as admitting that you are wrong. If the ancestor of pakicetus was shown to you you would simple demand to see its ancestors.

When you use a scope you only intercept a very very small percentage of the microwaves. The fossils that we see are only a very very small percentage of all life that has existed. Yet those fossils fit into a pattern that can only be explained in one way. The same applies to the few microwaves that you intercept, they tell you very specific facts about the source. You don't need to intercept all of the microwaves, we don't need to provide you with a fossil for every single step.

I have seen claims made alluding to that fact but I have not seen verifiable evidence that supports those claims. What it seems to boil down to for me is, science makes this argument and since it is science, I must accept it without question. Sorry, but science has not always been correct in its assertions. Make a believer out me, show me how anything can “evolve” from nothing, can you do that? At least without starting after some substantial developments have happened first.

Actually this is not true. You have rejected verifiable evidence that supports those claims. Like most creationists you do not understand the nature of evidence and that is how we know that you did not work in the sciences.

BTW, what I mean by “kind” is, there is a chimp, a monkey, a gorilla and a giraffe in a picture. You show this picture to a normal six year old and ask him to pick out the one that is different from the others, which one do you suppose would be selected? One is definitely a different kind, the others are different but with many similitudes, would you agree?

If you show the same six year old a picture with a monkey, a gorilla, a person and a giraffe in a picture and he will still pick the giraffe. Your argument supports the fact that you are the same kind as other apes.