Macroevolution:

[AV1611VET]

Scientists are people too you know. Many of them are Christians and have probably read and thought about the passage you quoted above.

The passage isn't science, but being people, scientists also do things outside of science.
Myself, I can't make any sense of your quote, or any relevance to our topic, but then again I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

You're honest ... I'll say that much.

Are you planning to stay here at CF for awhile? (I hope!)

 

[stevil]

In 2004, Pluto was classified as our 9th planet.

Was that a fact at one time in 2004?

It was a fact that Pluto was once classified as a planet and in August 2006 the definition of a planet was changed and from then on Pluto was classified as a dwarf planet.

In the 60s, Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug.

Was that a fact at one time in the 60s?

How about Phlogiston?

I don't know much about Thalidomide or Phlogiston.

Was it a fact at one time that the Titanic was unsinkable?

No, not a fact, I don't know what the history of that phrase is, whether it is a quote from someone or a marketing thing or what. But I'd be very surprised if the scientific community had decreed that it was unsinkable.

 

[stevil]

You're honest ... I'll say that much.

Are you planning to stay here at CF for awhile? (I hope!)

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'll stick around or not. Depends on the interesting conversations to be had. Us Atheists are somewhat put into a corner on this forum, we can only join some limited topics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'll stick around or not. Depends on the interesting conversations to be had. Us Atheists are somewhat put into a corner on this forum, we can only join some limited topics.

May I offer you a complimentary SITE SUPPORTER status for a month?

No ads to mess with. No delays between posts either.

 

[stevil]

May I offer you a complimentary SITE SUPPORTER status for a month?

No ads to mess with. No delays between posts either.

Oooh, you've got powers! I like it

 

[AV1611VET]

Oooh, you've got powers! I like it

LOL

Not quite.

It's a service that is available to us SITE SUPPORTERS (I think).

I'm a Lifetime Member here.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I'll stick around or not. Depends on the interesting conversations to be had. Us Atheists are somewhat put into a corner on this forum, we can only join some limited topics.

Given what happens on some sites, where antitheists have free rein, quarantining atheists is an unfortunate necessity.

 

[quatona]

Given what happens on some sites, where antitheists have free rein, quarantining atheists is an unfortunate necessity.

Which sites? What happens there?

 

[lesliedellow]

Which sites? What happens there?

Specifically, I was thinking of Yahoo Answers. It is too long since I have been there to think of particular examples. I briefly saw one of their regulars appear on here, and she rapidly got thrown off.

 

[xianghua]

How is it falling apart?

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them (phylogenetically speaking). so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.

now, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy need to be evidence against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them. so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.

now, if nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution, then non hierarchy need to be evidence against it.

View attachment 206873

What animals are "in between" them. The only animals that I can find without neurons are sponges and Trichoplax, both of which look like they split off from other animalia very very early in the evolutionary process.

Do you have a link that supports this claim?

 

[xianghua]

The scientific method justifies the stance that the eye has evolved more than once. They have very strong evidence supporting this.

evidence such as?...

on the other hand: do you think that a self replicating camera is evidence for design?

 

[Subduction Zone]

evidence such as?...

on the other hand: do you think that a self replicating camera is evidence for design?

The eye of the squid is different from the eye of a fish, which is different from the eye of a bee, which is different from the eye of a spider the list goes on.

 

[Loudmouth]

neurons exist in both bilateria and ctenophora but not in the groups between them (phylogenetically speaking). so the paper conclude that neurons evolved twice, or have been lost twice in the groups between them. this is why the nested hierarchy argument is falling apart.

That would only be true if they are homologous. Are they?

 

[Loudmouth]

evidence such as?...

on the other hand: do you think that a self replicating camera is evidence for design?

Depends on the self replicating camera. When those self replicating cameras fall into a nested hierarchy, it would indicate shared ancestry and evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

In 2004, Pluto was classified as our 9th planet.

Was that a fact at one time in 2004?

It was a matter of definition and nomenclature. In 2004 Pluto was a unique object; it was smaller and less massive than the next smallest planet (Mercury), but it was much larger and more massive than any of the asteroids; therefore it was reasonable to classify Pluto as a planet. When astronomers started discovering trans-Neptunian objects similar in size and mass to Pluto, it became necessary to devise a new classification for these intermediate-sized bodies. The re-definition of Pluto didn't mean that Pluto itself had suddenly changed from a real planet into a dwarf planet, only that astronomers' understanding of small solar-system bodies had changed.

In the 60s, Thalidomide was considered a prenatal wonder drug.

Was that a fact at one time in the 60s?

Not my field.

How about Phlogiston?

Phlogiston was a perfectly satisfactory hypothesis at the time that it was proposed, in that it was self-consistent and explained most of the observed facts. However, the advance of experimental chemistry during the 18th century showed the flaws in the hypothesis, and it became clear that 'phlogiston' was effectively 'negative oxygen', that the escape of 'phlogiston' from a substance actually corresponded to combination of the substance with oxygen.

Was it a fact at one time that the Titanic was unsinkable?

No, no ship can ever be entirely unsinkable. I don't know whether the claim was ever made for the 'Titanic' or whether it was invented afterwards. The best that that can be claimed is that a ship is unlikely to sink under normal conditions if she is properly handled.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a matter of definition and nomenclature.

I'm asking if it was a "fact," per this post:

Facts are beliefs too you know.

They are classified as Justified True Beliefs.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, no ship can ever be entirely unsinkable. I don't know whether the claim was ever made for the 'Titanic' or whether it was invented afterwards. The best that that can be claimed is that a ship is unlikely to sink under normal conditions if she is properly handled.

I think it was some hype surrounding the Titanic. Like the British battleship Prince of Wales, that the Japanese promptly sunk.

 

[stevil]

evidence such as?...

Cephalopod eye - Wikipedia
The structures of the Cephalopod eye are different to the vertebrate eye.
It seems there was a debate as to whether this occured as to parallel evolution or convergent evolution, but due to the evidence the convergent evolution explaination won out.

on the other hand: do you think that a self replicating camera is evidence for design?

Define camera?

I think evidence for design would be if you found a designer, or if you found design plans, especially if you found various design plans for the same structure, because if you only found one design plan you couldn't be sure if the author was a designer or was merely deconstructing the structure that they observed.

Designers tend to draw up several option and explore their designs before going into build mode. Of course if you have an all perfect god creator it wouldn't need to explore alternate designs because it would already know which is the perfect design.

 

[stevil]

I'm asking if it was a "fact," per this post:

No-one is disputing whether science conclusions can be wrong. No one is disputing that the current view of evolution can't be wrong.

Given all the evidence, the current view is the best empirical based view that we have. There are no alternative empirical based options separate from that of evolution.

The religious idea that a god poofed full formed creatures into existence isn't an empirical based view. It doesn't explain why we get strong evidence for progressive stepwise evolution and speciation.