Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[xianghua]

I used to be a Christian and I had no problem with Evolution. I also had a PhD in the very same field you claim to be educated in and I found evolution to make very good sense.

if so what is your best evidence for evolution?

 

[Obliquinaut]

if so what is your best evidence for evolution?

That's a good question. There's so many. I am impressed by TRANSITIONAL FORMS . I especially like Tiktaalik which was predicted and later found in the right age of geologic formation.

I remember my undergrad days in my paleontology class when our class project was to go to the local quarry in the middle of the US (Illinois) to find fossils. The quarry had been gone over for years of classes and most people pulled up brachiopods (ocean creatures...look on a map and see where Illinois is today). I was crawling across a shale pile the size of house and stumbled across a SHARK'S TOOTH (again, look at where Illinois is at and measure the distance to the nearest ocean, hint it's a long way). It wasn't like a modern sharks tooth. It was small. From a cladodont level shark that used to exist in a sea that used to exist. I saw the vastness of time in that one event. Couple that with a few more years of crawling over other rocks in other places seeing other life forms (along with additional evidence of evolution) and you've got someone who believes in evolution based on data.

I'm not a genetics guy but the various genetic evidences of evolution also impress me. I have just enough simple understanding of biology to appreciate it.

 

[majj27]

Well, that explains who he is. The "why should I care what he says" question is still to be resolved.

Well, because he's incredibly accomplished in the field of biol... he's been a noted expert on evol... his scientific background in th...

...

...

...okay, I got nothing.

 

[Ronald]

Thank you for the non-sequitur response which has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

However, it confirms the long-running pattern that every time I bring up applied evolutionary biology, creationists having zero answer for it.

So you got zero from my posts, OK then.

 

[Ronald]

Jesus never confirmed the Adam and Eve myth. He used poetic language quite often. Your claims that I was talking about did not come from Jesus, they came from others. And they lied to you. You listened to liars.

But until you learn you will have no way to tell whether they were lying or not.

The Word of God is God breathed, it is His message to us, not contrived by man, so Jesus told us exactly how the world began and how He fashioned creation and finished each kind. We were made finished, we did not evolve. If He had any reservations or disagreements with the Old Testament scriptures, He would have corrected them. He did not. YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO AND FOLLOW LIARS!
You've spent years trying to dismantle, ridicule and bash our beliefs and promote this false theory. You will reap what you sow.

 

[Ronald]

OH COME ON, MAN! On this thread alone we've pointed to a large number of transitional fossils. If you don't like them it doesn't make them any less transitional!

Where, all I heard was the claim that "numerous thousands have been found and even those that exist now may be transitional forms". This is a blanket statement, not proof. All we see in the fossil records are animals that either exist today or are just plain extinct, that doesn't make them transitional forms. Having similarities doesn't mean, "Oh they must related, they have hands and fingers".

 

[quatona]

i asked you about a specific object. will you call it a watch or not?

You said definitions don´t matter - so this question is immaterial, by your own submission.

 

[Ronald]

What about Christians who are also evolutionists? What did Jesus say to do with them?

As I said, our faith in Jesus is not based on origins, it's based on who He is, what He did and will do. If half of Christians believe in theistic evolution, that doesn't invalidate their faith in Jesus.

 

[Ronald]

You don't know much about astronomy. The sun passes through Virgo every September and October, and the moon passes through Virgo every month, so the sun and the moon must both be in Virgo at least once in every year. Also Jupiter passes through Virgo every twelve years, and remains in the constellation for about fourteen months, not merely nine; therefore the sun, the moon and Jupiter must all be in Virgo at least once in every twelve years. So how do you make out that this is 'a rare occurrence that hasn't happened since the birth of Christ'? Of course, since the sun will be in Virgo on 23rd September, nobody will be able to see either Virgo itself or Jupiter; since it will be only three days after New Moon, only keen stargazers will be likely to see the moon.

I know the sun and moon are frequent guests of Virgo as well as Jupiter. It is not rare that only these guests appear, it is rare that main stars of Leo, plus Venus, Mars and Mercury are also present at the same time. The scripture explains the woman is "clothed with the sun", meaning at 4pm Jerusalem time it is in that position. Hours later the sign is revealed with a slightly different vantage point, nevertheless it is there. Obviously, you googled the nay-sayer website who said exactly what you are saying - nice editorial, but wrong.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Where, all I heard was the claim that "numerous thousands have been found and even those that exist now may be transitional forms". This is a blanket statement, not proof. All we see in the fossil records are animals that either exist today or are just plain extinct, that doesn't make them transitional forms. Having similarities doesn't mean, "Oh they must related, they have hands and fingers".

-sigh- This statement indicates that you will ask for transitional forms and when shown them simply make claims that they aren't transitional. And then you create strawman arguments based on an astounding lack of understanding the topic.

This is an impossible (and pointless) avenue of debate. Why do you think this is somehow reasonable?

 

[Obliquinaut]

As I said, our faith in Jesus is not based on origins, it's based on who He is, what He did and will do. If half of Christians believe in theistic evolution, that doesn't invalidate their faith in Jesus.

So you're saying evolution is "ok" theologically? It doesn't matter to Christianity?

So what is your primary reason to ignore all the data for evolution? Just curious. If it isn't religious in origin why fight against it when it is kind of clear you don't really track on the technical details?

 

[Ronald]

-sigh- This statement indicates that you will ask for transitional forms and when shown them simply make claims that they aren't transitional. And then you create strawman arguments based on an astounding lack of understanding the topic.

This is an impossible (and pointless) avenue of debate. Why do you think this is somehow reasonable?

Post# please of your claim of a list or examples of transitional forms?

 

[Obliquinaut]

The Word of God is God breathed, it is His message to us, not contrived by man, so Jesus told us exactly how the world began and how He fashioned creation and finished each kind. We were made finished, we did not evolve. If He had any reservations or disagreements with the Old Testament scriptures, He would have corrected them. He did not. YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO AND FOLLOW LIARS!
You've spent years trying to dismantle, ridicule and bash our beliefs and promote this false theory. You will reap what you sow.

You continue to persist in your error: You must account for those Christians who have no problem with Evolution.

And no one is trying to dismantle your Christian faith. Many atheists like myself are more than happy for you to have your Christian faith! I get SO TIRED of being told how I am trying to deconvert someone. I would never want to take someone's faith away from them.

But then you come in and try to tell us all how the science many of us dedicated our careers to is "lying" to us and you know the TRUTH.

But when pressed your TRUTH is usually just made up of weak attacks on science you don't understand.

You are free to believe as you like, but you are NOT allowed to critique science you don't understand without scientists pointing out the weakness of your argument.

Don't try to lay some guilt trip on us because you are too lazy to learn the science and you want to call it a lie.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Post# please of your claim of a list or examples of transitional forms?

Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

And of course a simple google search would have yielded plenty of information (so long as you stay away from biased Creationist-only sources)

 

[Ronald]

So you're saying evolution is "ok" theologically? It doesn't matter to Christianity?

So what is your primary reason to ignore all the data for evolution? Just curious. If it isn't religious in origin why fight against it when it is kind of clear you don't really track on the technical details?

To me, it is not OK theologically. It forces believers to distort the literal meaning of Genesis. They have to change and symbolize what the Bible literally claims. Once you distort Genesis, then that opens the rest of the Bible to say, "Hey, this must not be true either, it must mean something else"! And on and on it goes until you are totally confused and uncertain about what the Bible says, leading to a weak faith. Either we can have faith and certainty in all the scriptures and take most of what is in there literally or doubts about what we believe will certainly surface and throw us off.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Word of God is God breathed, it is His message to us, not contrived by man, so Jesus told us exactly how the world began and how He fashioned creation and finished each kind. We were made finished, we did not evolve. If He had any reservations or disagreements with the Old Testament scriptures, He would have corrected them. He did not. YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO AND FOLLOW LIARS!
You've spent years trying to dismantle, ridicule and bash our beliefs and promote this false theory. You will reap what you sow.

If you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you.

And no, Jesus never mentioned how the world began. Why would he correct people that could not understand the corrections, if he was who he said that he was?


And please, you are making a statement that you cannot support. If you want to claim that evolution is a lie you need to prove it. Waving Genesis around only harms you and the Bible. I can help you to learn, but it is rather obvbious that your scientific education needs to start at the beginning.

And please, no false threats. You and I will end up in the same place at the end. You do not want to condemn yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me, it is not OK theologically. It forces believers to distort the literal meaning of Genesis. They have to change and symbolize what the Bible literally claims. Once you distort Genesis, then that opens the rest of the Bible to say, "Hey, this must not be true either, it must mean something else"! And on and on it goes until you are totally confused and uncertain about what the Bible says, leading to a weak faith. Either we can have faith and certainty in all the scriptures and take most of what is in there literally or doubts about what we believe will certainly surface and throw us off.

But that only shows that you have a mistaken interpretation of Genesis at best.

Let's go through this logically. You can reason I hope.

You believe that God made this world.

Therefore he made everything in it. Everything that we observe about it.

Everything that we observe about the world tells us that life evolved, That you and I are apes. That there was no flood.

That evidence would have had to come from your God, if he is real.

If the evidence "lies" then you are saying that "God lied".

Even when I was a Christian I did not believe that God lied, do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

funny. when they are different they are claiming for convenrgent evolution. but lets play in this game. so your are saying that evolution predict that we will not find a case with the same gene (or very similar one) in some far species but not in some species between them? is this your evolutionery prediction?

Try again in English. The article was about how a specific gene had different ERV's in different areas and how it affected that gene. Yes, similar results can occur through evolution. But, and this is the part of the article that sailed far over your head, those difference will be obvious in the genome, and those differences will still fit a nested hierarchy. Guess what that article points out? How a similar acting trait evolved two different times, but those two different times still fit the nested hierarchy. That is why they showed when and how those events occurred using one.

You shot yourself in the foot with that article.

 

[Obliquinaut]

To me, it is not OK theologically. It forces believers to distort the literal meaning of Genesis. They have to change and symbolize what the Bible literally claims. Once you distort Genesis, then that opens the rest of the Bible to say, "Hey, this must not be true either, it must mean something else"! And on and on it goes until you are totally confused and uncertain about what the Bible says, leading to a weak faith. Either we can have faith and certainty in all the scriptures and take most of what is in there literally or doubts about what we believe will certainly surface and throw us off.

So that's why it's OK to not necessarily understand the science if it becomes inconvenient to the faith?

I understand that when one feels that their immortal soul is endangered by a topic one would want to destroy that topic with all due alacrity. But if the destruction of that topic requires one does so without really understanding the topic it will be met with resistance.

It's not my faith, so I really don't have a say in how it is best undertaken. I always felt sorry for YEC and Biblical LIteralists because it turns the world and even the Bible into a kind of joke. There's wonderful things in the bible (along with some really awful things), and some great METAPHORS or writings by early people trying to make sense of their world. When I see someone take a literal approach to the entire Bible it takes away any of the prose value to the text and when they apply it to the world it makes me feel really sad for those people who view the world that way.

Everytime I'm out looking at geology I see an amazing planet with so much that has gone on in the past and I'm overawed.

Evolution is similar. It's so neat to see how life has changed and to see the connections between us and all the other life forms on the planet.

 

[pitabread]

To me, it is not OK theologically. It forces believers to distort the literal meaning of Genesis. They have to change and symbolize what the Bible literally claims. Once you distort Genesis, then that opens the rest of the Bible to say, "Hey, this must not be true either, it must mean something else"! And on and on it goes until you are totally confused and uncertain about what the Bible says, leading to a weak faith. Either we can have faith and certainty in all the scriptures and take most of what is in there literally or doubts about what we believe will certainly surface and throw us off.

Historically speaking, when it comes to having to choose between science versus religion, science tends to win the long-run.