(Moved) Some controversy over creation is unnecessary

[Speedwell]

Speedwell, I have read quite a bit and not all evolutionists accept Gould's proposition. Some reject it altogether, some have adopted moderated position (like the one you propose), and some have embraced it. So far, no one has identified a mechanism that explains the punctuations.

I might suggest that your reading may be a little out of date, causing you to overplay the "controversy" about an interesting phenomenon which falls, in fact, clearly within the sphere of the modern synthesis. Just goes to show, though, that we don't yet understand evolution fully; science marches on--just be patient.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will look for your response. A few thoughts:

Evolutionists who hold to gradualism need to explain why the fossil record doesn't appear to support their theory; if a population gradually evolves we should see significantly different evidence for this in the fossil record.

The gradualism you speak of is a strawman at best. And even in relatively static conditions changes in can be observed. Of course the greatest evolutionary changes occur when the environment changes.

Evolutionists who hold to a theory of punctuated equilibrium need to explain the mechanism that causes these rapid changes that happened far too quickly to be explained by random mutations.

The proper term is scientists not evolutionists. Now I can see how you may be confused since creationists are as a rule not scientists. They do not use the scientific method in their work. But how do you know that changes occur too rapidly? It seems that you think because there is a random element to evolution that it is a random process. You could not be more wrong. This is why it is extremely important to remember that populations evolve, not individuals. Changes do not have to occur one after another. Multiple changes can evolve at the same time in a population. Also populations will have a statistical variation in their genome. I am sure that Speedwell can go over the math of that and what it means for evolution.

Additionally, the fact that (even among evolutionists) there are competing theories demonstrates the point of this thread i.e. there is simply not enough definitive evidence for the dogmatism that characterizes far too much of this debate.

Please, again no dishonesty, yes there are different explanations for minor changes in evolution. There is practically no disagreement among the experts in the field that life as we know it is the product of evolution. This is not like Christianity where the countless different sects are evidence against it. Too many Christians are ready to condemn other Christians to hell because they do not believe the same way that they do. In science minor difference are debated but they do not tend to claim that others are completely wrong.

You do realize that the theory of evolution with its minor differences between groups is the only idea that is currently supported by scientific evidence, don't you?

 

[benelchi]

I might suggest that your reading may be a little out of date,

Not likely.

Just goes to show, though, that we don't yet understand evolution fully; science marches on--just be patient.

Which only emphasizes the point of this thread i.e. there is not enough information known today to warrant the level of dogmatism that so often characterizes this topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not likely.

So far it seems that way.

Which only emphasizes the point of this thread i.e. there is not enough information known today to warrant the level of dogmatism that so often characterizes this topic.

And yet you can't demonstrate this supposed dogmatism. You seem to be jealous of the fact that the concept of common descent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At best you will only come back with strawman and misunderstandings of your own on how life evolved.

 

[benelchi]

When are you going to begin presenting the evidence you have promised?

The gradualism you speak of is a strawman at best. And even in relatively static conditions changes in can be observed. Of course the greatest evolutionary changes occur when the environment changes.



The proper term is scientists not evolutionists. Now I can see how you may be confused since creationists are as a rule not scientists. They do not use the scientific method in their work. But how do you know that changes occur too rapidly? It seems that you think because there is a random element to evolution that it is a random process. You could not be more wrong. This is why it is extremely important to remember that populations evolve, not individuals. Changes do not have to occur one after another. Multiple changes can evolve at the same time in a population. Also populations will have a statistical variation in their genome. I am sure that Speedwell can go over the math of that and what it means for evolution.



Please, again no dishonesty, yes there are different explanations for minor changes in evolution. There is practically no disagreement among the experts in the field that life as we know it is the product of evolution. This is not like Christianity where the countless different sects are evidence against it. Too many Christians are ready to condemn other Christians to hell because they do not believe the same way that they do. In science minor difference are debated but they do not tend to claim that others are completely wrong.

You do realize that the theory of evolution with its minor differences between groups is the only idea that is currently supported by scientific evidence, don't you?

 

[Speedwell]

Not likely.



Which only emphasizes the point of this thread i.e. there is not enough information known today to warrant the level of dogmatism that so often characterizes this topic.

What "dogmatism?" There is no competing theory to demonstrate dogmatism toward.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When are you going to begin presenting the evidence you have promised?

What do you want evidence of? Your questions and comments have been very general. Evidence is usually rather specific.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

Since this thread deals with creationism, it has been moved to the Creation & Evolution sub-forum.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not likely.



Which only emphasizes the point of this thread i.e. there is not enough information known today to warrant the level of dogmatism that so often characterizes this topic.

Oh, Wow! I'm so glad I didn't go through an American system of education, is Science even a subject being taught in grade school there or are there cracks in the education system so monumental you can drive trucks through...?

 

[USincognito]

I will look for your response. A few thoughts:

Evolutionists who hold to gradualism need to explain why the fossil record doesn't appear to support their theory; if a population gradually evolves we should see significantly different evidence for this in the fossil record.

Evolutionists who hold to a theory of punctuated equilibrium need to explain the mechanism that causes these rapid changes that happened far too quickly to be explained by random mutations.

Additionally, the fact that (even among evolutionists) there are competing theories demonstrates the point of this thread i.e. there is simply not enough definitive evidence for the dogmatism that characterizes far too much of this debate.

The "scientific proof" thing was making me mental enough, but the misuse of theory is inexcusable.

There is evidence for gradualism, which is an observation, not a theory. There is also evidence supporting PE which is a hypothesis, not a theory. Finally, do you know what the "equilibrium" in PE refers to?

 

[USincognito]

. So far, no one has identified a mechanism that explains the punctuations.

Huh? Gould and Eldridge identified the mechanism from the very beginning - massive environmental change and extinction events opened up niches for populations to evolve in rapidly, thus leaving fewer opportunities for representatives of particular species to be fossilized.

 

[USincognito]

When are you going to begin presenting the evidence you have promised?

Please, do go on. What sort of evidence are you interested in?

 

[benelchi]

Huh? Gould and Eldridge identified the mechanism from the very beginning - massive environmental change and extinction events opened up niches for populations to evolve in rapidly, thus leaving fewer opportunities for representatives of particular species to be fossilized.

Gould and Eldridge have proposed that significant changes to the genome happened in time periods shorter than 20,000 years in very small localized areas, with beneficial changes to the genome occurring in nearly every successive generation. They have not proposed a mechanism that would explain a cause for a rate of mutations that is orders of magnitude beyond anything we have ever witnessed. Environmental causes may explain the need for change, but they do not explain a mechanism that caused the change.

 

[USincognito]

Gould and Eldridge have proposed that significant changes to the genome happened in time periods shorter than 20,000 years in very small localized areas, with beneficial changes to the genome occurring in nearly every successive generation. They have not proposed a mechanism that would explain a cause for a rate of mutations that is orders of magnitude beyond anything we have ever witnessed. Environmental causes may explain the need for change, but they do not explain a mechanism that caused the change.

Do you have a citation for any of these claims?

 

[benelchi]

Do you have a citation for any of these claims?

The information came from my science classes at SJSU years ago, but here are some quick references on the web.

Rate of evolution - Wikipedia

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

 

[bhsmte]

A good place to start is to stop relying on "evidence" that was manufactured simply to add weight to ones personal perspective, and rely only on the real evidence found in Scripture. Then take the time to honestly evaluate the strengths of the arguments held by others, and especially note places where their arguments may be stronger than your own.

Can you provide examples of this; "manufactured evidence" and provide support as to why you claim it is manufactured?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you provide examples of this; "manufactured evidence" and provide support as to why you claim it is manufactured?

When one has no evidence of one's own it sometimes feels like a wise strategy is to attack the evidence that supports one's opposition. Of course that is not very wise. It is better to either develop one's own evidence or to admit that one is wrong if there is no evidence for one's belief.

 

[benelchi]

Can you provide examples of this; "manufactured evidence" and provide support as to why you claim it is manufactured?

I take it you didn't read the article that I provided in the link. Here are few examples of AiG's claims that are false. The documentation demonstrating that these claims are false can be found in the article I linked to. Here is the link again.

Please don’t create unnecessary division among believers over God’s creation!

AIG FALSE Claims:

1) “Here, the Greek word for begat is gennao, which shows flexibility not found in the Hebrew word and does allow for the possibility that a generation or more may be skipped.”


2) “The Hebrew word yalad for begat is not used in the 1 Chronicles passage (1 Chronicles 7:23–27);”
‎

3) “These verbs use the hiphil form of the verb” and that the “Hiphil usually expresses the causative action of qal. God chose this form to make it absolutely clear that we understand that there are no missing generations in chapters 5 and 11 of Genesis. Any other Hebrew verb form would not have been nearly as emphatic as the hiphil form.”

 

[benelchi]

When one has no evidence of one's own it sometimes feels like a wise strategy is to attack the evidence that supports one's opposition. Of course that is not very wise. It is better to either develop one's own evidence or to admit that one is wrong if there is no evidence for one's belief.

Clearly you didn't read the article either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly you didn't read the article either.

Perhaps not. I see so much utter trash here. Would you care to link it again? I don't keep tabs on every single debate that I enter into here.

Oh wait, that article. I did not read the entire thing since they relied on bogus dishonest sources.