Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone, I strongly believe that in a court of law a jury would be persuaded with the big bang evidence. But think about how quickly the decision would be made for the existence of the moon! Why? Better evidence. You'll never beat the evidence of seeing with your own eyes

That is only because they too had seen the Moon. What if they hadn't? You would lose to the Big Bang theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reported events I personally experienced. I'll be sure to video tape my entire life from now on. In fact I'm buying a body cam right now because I care that much about your doubt.

You made a claim that was probably false. I am not saying that you lied, you probably simple misremember. That is supported strongly by the fact that you could not support your claim at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

-sigh-. It is hard when one tries to speak honestly about science.

I will repeat for what is likely the billionth time: science is ALWAYS going with the most likely explanation. There is no 100% perfect proof in science.

If you thought there was it is you who fail to understand science.

I really do feel sad that so many people never take science classes after high school because they would learn so much more about science.

(You would do well to dial back your "pridefulness" on this topic considering that you seem to be woefully uneducated in how science actually works.)

Yep, creationists will clutch at straws and try to use honesty against a debater. The sciences can be so sure that one could bet their lives on it. In fact we do every day. And yet they clutch to an idea that was refuted beyond a reasonable doubt over 100 years ago and it only is continually shown to be more and more wrong as time goes on.

 

[Sanoy]

You made a claim that was probably false.

Probably? Such harsh accusations! I am wounded and offended.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably? Such harsh accusations! I am wounded and offended.

I don't want to falsely accuse someone of lying. I know that unless you had the absolute worst book textbook in the history of education that your claims are simply wrong. Rather than screaming "liar" it is much better to assume that someone made a mistake.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't want to falsely accuse someone of lying. I know that unless you had the absolute worst book textbook in the history of education that your claims are simply wrong. Rather than screaming "liar" it is much better to assume that someone made a mistake.

You can assume what you want you want to believe, and I'll believe what I experienced.

 

[Dirk1540]

How would you characterize someone who believes the earth is flat? Would it not be appropriate to suggest they shouldn't hold a position teaching geology or planetary science?

It is one thing to allow for skeptical voices, it is quite another to simply assume that because someone can say something it deserves equal respect to actual science.

I believe it would be appropriate to deny the flat Earther a teaching position because they reject the data. They have inaccurate science, so no they can't teach science. BUT, claiming to know the driving force behind the data is philosophy not science. Claiming that God holds the universe in place, or claiming that the current universe is in place do to random chance are both philosophical statements, neither one of those beliefs causes them to misrepresent the raw data. Flat Earth proposes bad data, just as one example flat Earth model fails because you can not view certain stars in the southern hemisphere that you can in the northern hemisphere and vice versa. A flat Earth model would be able to view the those stars in either location.

 

[Dirk1540]

I will repeat for what is likely the billionth time: science is ALWAYS going with the most likely explanation. There is no 100% perfect proof in science.

Yeah but you're denying that there are levels of likelyhoods. You're basically saying it's either likely or not. How can you not agree that an observable event has more going for it then a forensic type theory of an event a million years ago?

 

[pitabread]

I already went over this in the thread.

Your original claim was " As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes."

However, later you said, "the 2 I remember most were the peppered moths and the stages of birth."

I'm not sure what "stages of birth" is referring to.

Peppered moths as evidence of natural selection, however, have never been false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes:

Factors other than predation have often been argued to play a substantial role in the rise and subsequent post-industrial fall of melanism in Biston. Nonetheless, with this new evidence added to the existing data, it is virtually impossible to escape the previously accepted conclusion that visual predation by birds is the major cause of rapid changes in frequency of melanic peppered moths. These new data answer criticisms of earlier work and validate the methodology employed in many previous predation experiments that used tree trunks as resting sites. The new data, coupled with the weight of previously existing data convincingly show that ‘industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action’.

Natural selection on melanism | Biology Letters

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yeah but you're denying that there are levels of likelyhoods.

I most certainly am NOT! Did I not already discuss p-values in this thread??

Have you read any actual scientific articles? If you look closely at graphs you'll note that they often include something called a p-value. This is an estimate of the probability of making a "Type I error" in rejecting a true null hypothesis (a "false positive").

THAT is what is meant by levels of likelihood.

You're basically saying it's either likely or not.

I am sorry but you are drawing completely unfounded conclusions. I have NO idea where you are getting this from.

How can you not agree that an observable event has more going for it then a forensic type theory of an event a million years ago?

So are you saying you NEED to see large scale evolutionary events happening in front of your eyes in real time? I don't believe it works that way. That would be like saying you need to see a continent move in real time in order to believe in plate tectonics. Considering that plates move in the order of mm or cm/year you are unlikely to see it happening with your eyes.

I am flummoxed as to what you are actually on about here. You are conflating types of events and making it sound as if only ONE TYPE OF EVEN (something you can see with your own eyes in real time) is the only thing that counts as "evidence". That is strange.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can assume what you want you want to believe, and I'll believe what I experienced.

Once again, since I understand this topic far better than you I know that you are wrong.

Worse yet you made a claim. You could not support it. It would have taken only a little bit of work to support your claim if you really thought that you were right. You have heard the saying that one's actions speak much louder than one's words. Well in this case your own inaction demonstrates that you knew you were wrong, at least once you thought about it.

 

[Dirk1540]

Should I switch gears and throw another curveball into this war lol? One of the hardest things for me to grasp about evolution being true (I feel like I gotta qualify the word Evolution but I won't) is the monopoly that humans have on creative intelligence. How long did it take for the peppered moth to change color to save itself from getting completely dominated? Pretty quickly, as well as the beaks of Darwin's finches, they adjusted pretty quickly. So, how many species have gone extinct thanks to the disruptive nature of humans? We've completely dominated so many species with our ways...yet ZERO evolution to compete against us! Why doesn't a single species EVOLVE their creative intelligence in order to defend against us? We literally can now end the world with a nuclear holocaust...well some things like cockroaches would survive. But why is there no evolution going on to rival the specie that is now one nuclear war away from ending SO MANY other species?

Why would we have evolved at all? Why would mother nature give rise to a specie that does nothing but destroy mother nature? Why would mother nature basically create a psychopath specie? And why are we the only species on Earth that wreaks havoc like this? So #1, humans have a monopoly on creative intelligence, and #2 humans have a monopoly on destroying the planet that gave rise to them...all other species work within the confines of nature, they OBEY nature if that's a good way to put it. Humans even ruin the world by relocating species to their unnatural habitats, we are a mess. Why is their only one species out of the millions that break the mold so distinctively? It makes no evolutionary sense.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not sure what "stages of birth" is referring to.

Peppered moths as evidence of natural selection, however, have never been false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes:

I am referring to the fake embryo chart that is supposed to show a particular similarity to other species of embryo during development. He deliberately exaggerated the drawings to give the ostensible appearance of evolution. It's a fake.

The peppered moths in the photograph are dead moths. They had to put dead ones because the live ones had no inclination to rest there. They had to place them onto tree trunks just to get the birds to eat them.

 

[Sanoy]

Once again, since I understand this topic far better than you I know that you are wrong.

Oh no, things just went up a notch from "probably wrong" to you know I'm wrong. It's getting intense!! What ever will I do? Your baseless accusation is just so compelling I am left with no other choice but to imagine I hallucinated it all.

Like I said I ordered a body cam just for you, so this never happens again. Because I value your doubt, deeply, and I want you to know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Should I switch gears and throw another curveball into this war lol? One of the hardest things for me to grasp about evolution being true (I feel like I gotta qualify the word Evolution but I won't) is the monopoly that humans have on creative intelligence. How long did it take for the peppered moth to change color to save itself from getting completely dominated? Pretty quickly, as well as the beaks of Darwin's finches, they adjusted pretty quickly. So, how many species have gone extinct thanks to the disruptive nature of humans? We've completely dominated so many species with our ways...yet ZERO evolution to compete against us! Why doesn't a single species EVOLVE their creative intelligence in order to defend against us? We literally can now end the world with a nuclear holocaust...well some things like cockroaches would survive. But why is there no evolution going on to rival the specie that is now one nuclear war away from ending SO MANY other species?

Why would we have evolved at all? Why would mother nature give rise to a specie that does nothing but destroy mother nature? Why would mother nature basically create a psychopath specie? And why are we the only species on Earth that wreaks havoc like this? So #1, humans have a monopoly on creative intelligence, and #2 humans have a monopoly on destroying the planet that gave rise to them...all other species work within the confines of nature, they OBEY nature if that's a good way to put it. Humans even ruin the world by relocating species to their unnatural habitats, we are a mess. Why is their only one species out of the millions that break the mold so distinctively? It makes no evolutionary sense.

You are assuming that there is a creative intelligence behind evolution when you ask "why hasn't evolution". There is no driving intelligence. Evolution is simply a reaction to changing environments. Your sort of evolution would actually refute the theory of evolution if it occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh no, things just went up a notch from "probably wrong" to you know I'm wrong. It's getting intense!! What ever will I do? Your baseless accusation is just so compelling I am left with no other choice but to imagine I hallucinated it all.

Like I said I ordered a body cam just for you, so this never happens again. Because I value your doubt, deeply.

In the two examples that you mentioned you were shown to be wrong. The peppered moths were never a fake. You relied on a lying source for that claim.

Haeckle was never convicted of being a fraud. That is another unsupported claim of creationists. Worse yet what he supported was not Darwinian evolution, but a similar concept. He was shown to be wrong, yet embryology is still used today to support evolution. But today pictures are used rather than drawings.

You are 0 for 2 on your claims. You were wrong. You found a lying source, and I am sorry to have to tell you this, but since these creationist claims have been refuted countless times they have to know that they are wrong by now, yet they persist in those claims. That takes them from merely being wrong to being liars.

 

[Sanoy]

In the two examples that you mentioned you were shown to be wrong. The peppered moths were never a fake. You relied on a lying source for that claim.

Haeckle was never convicted of being a fraud. That is another unsupported claim of creationists. Worse yet what he supported was not Darwinian evolution, but a similar concept. He was shown to be wrong, yet embryology is still used today to support evolution. But today pictures are used rather than drawings.

You are 0 for 2 on your claims. You were wrong. You found a lying source, and I am sorry to have to tell you this, but since these creationist claims have been refuted countless times they have to know that they are wrong by now, yet they persist in those claims. That takes them from merely being wrong to being liars.

Your own apologists are saying Haeckle is a fraud.

The Peppered moths in that photo are dead.

 

[Dirk1540]

You are assuming that there is a creative intelligence behind evolution when you ask "why hasn't evolution". There is no driving intelligence. Evolution is simply a reaction to changing environments. Your sort of evolution would actually refute the theory of evolution if it occurred.

What I wrote suggests creative intelligence. The pattern of evolution being simply a reaction to changing environments is completely blown out of the water with humans. I even know atheists who argue that our presence on this planet is so strange compared to everything else in nature, that they believe aliens dropped us off here as an experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am referring to the fake embryo chart that is supposed to show a particular similarity to other species of embryo during development. He deliberately exaggerated the drawings to give the ostensible appearance of evolution. It's a fake.

Nope, at worse he deliberately exaggerated features so that others could see them. In those days pictures were not available. Now we can take clear pictures where one can see those traits. You will see the original Haeckel drawings next to pictures. How is that "fraud"?

The peppered moths in the photograph are dead moths. They had to put dead ones because the live ones had no inclination to rest there. They had to place them onto tree trunks just to get the birds to eat them.

No, they used dead ones because it is very difficult to climb a tree and get a good picture. Again, the picture was taken to make it more obvious to students. That does not make it "fraud".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your own apologists are saying Haeckle is a fraud.

The Peppered moths in that photo are dead.

Nope, that is not the case. Here you go:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud not proven.pdf

And so what if the moths are dead? Does that mean all butterfly collections in museums are "frauds"? I will have to tell them that time next time I visit one.

You have a rather unique definition of "fraud".