The evidence for Evolution.

[pat34lee]

Facts aren't things to be believed. They are things to be acknowledged.

It's factually true that whales have (broken) genes to build legs.
It's factually true that chickens have (broken) genes to build teeth.
It's factually true that humans, and all other primates, have a (broken) GULO gene.
It's factually true that humans and chimps share an enormous amount of ERV's.
It's factually true that moles have non-functioning eyeballs hidden behind a thick layer of skin.
It's factually true that a human's spine isn't really fit for bipedalism, causing lower backpains.
It's factually true that a human mouth is too small to house all the teeth, causing much pain and a need to remove "wisdom teeth".

All these things are simple facts.

Simple facts that point somewhere you aren't looking.
Degeneration. The same process that gives us arthritis,
joint pain and a host of other ailments also works on
our genes to break them down over time. Far from being
the pinnacle of evolution, we are smaller, weaker and much
more fragile than our early ancestors. Not to mention less
intelligent and creative.

 

[pat34lee]

Never proof, only provisional confirmation and subject to disproof at any time as a consequence of new data. That's how science works.

How it SHOULD work, anyway. Who decided that vestigial
organs were useless, and how did they show it? Who found
junk DNA and showed that it had no function at any time?
Nobody did. Those were works of faith, not science.

 

[Speedwell]

How it SHOULD work, anyway. Who decided that vestigial
organs were useless, and how did they show it? Who found
junk DNA and showed that it had no function at any time?
Nobody did. Those were works of faith, not science.

How it does work, or we would still think that vestigial organs were useless and "junk" DNA had no function.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I have read the thread, and thought I understood it. Your original point seemed to be that you don't think that the ToE is Kenny'sID's 'Satan's Illusion', although its misuse might be, which is fair enough - but having then stated that this has, 'little to do with the biological fact of evolution itself', you then went into it in considerably more detail. I was curious to know what the point of that was.

The point that I was making was the one I gave to Kenny'sID in post #67. But, then, he wanted to bring in what he was talking about and conjoin in to "Satan's plan," .....

I don't disagree that the concept of Darwinian evolution has been misapplied and/or abused, so I'm not attempting to counter your statements - and as for red herrings, my question was asking why you were still persisting with what you had effectively said was itself a red herring.

...and in addressing Kenny'sID's idea about "Satan's plan," I don't think my adjustment in focus, so as to address his newly inserted concern, can be counted as a 'red-herring.'

And then after that ... In situ came into the conversation, in which case I laid out the basic ideas that I did, AND in the process I referenced that nice little article from SALON.

So, I started to discuss with Kenny'ID that, in my estimation, he doesn't need to be concerned about the Theory of Evolution as a "substitute truth," being that Darwin stated that his theory was "provisional truth." That was the main point I was trying to address.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... That was the main point I was trying to address.

OK, thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I talked to quite a few radical fundamentalists in my life...

"Radical fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[AV1611VET]

cdesign proponentsists disagree.

I'm not sure they do.

If so, cdesign proponentsists can take a hike.

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's great. You can "feel" it all you want, but there was at least a social influence of sorts brought on by Darwin's THEORY of evolution, as I stated to In situ earlier.

As I said, it doesn't matter. Either species evolved or they didn't. And whatever political ideas the answer to that question "inspired" or didn't inspire has no bearing or relevancy to it's accuracy.

The existance or source of the political (or whatever) idea of "Social Darwinism", has no impact on the truth value of the scientific model of biological evolution.

And there is no need to capitalize the word "theory" either, by the way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Simple facts that point somewhere you aren't looking.
Degeneration.

No. Adaption to an ever-changin environment.

Moles lost eye function, but gained other function of orientation.
Whale lost legs, but gained fins suitable for life in the ocean.
Our mouth became too small for all our teeth, because our brains grew bigger.

The same process that gives us arthritis,
joint pain and a host of other ailments also works on
our genes to break them down over time.

That's aging.

Far from being the pinnacle of evolution, we are smaller, weaker and much
more fragile than our early ancestors.

But a lot smarter and extremely better at surviving and reproducing.
Infant mortality is expressed in "x in 1000" these days. It used to be "x in 10".
Life expectancy is some ~80-ish years. It used to be 25-30.

Not to mention less intelligent and creative.

I don't remember ancient humans doing quantum mechanics or putting robots on Mars.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure they do.

If so, cdesign proponentsists can take a hike.

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

That's from the very organisation that is responsible for disguising creationism in a lab coat and calling it "intelligent design".

As was exposed in court to be the case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And there is no need to capitalize the word "theory" either, by the way.

I think that 2PiloVoid is confusing the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Radical fundamentalist" is a contradiction in terms.

Not really: 'Radical Fundamentalist' - "Someone so confident in their own beliefs that they are unwilling to think reasonably and consider other perspectives. Usually in the form of some religious teaching that benefits them and their group."

See 'What's the difference between radical and fundamental'.

 

[pat34lee]

So who was it who said that we're 'the pinnacle of evolution' ?
Based on what evidence?

How many animals have developed language, arts, culture
music, husbandry and agriculture, much less science and
religion? Then again, we're special creations, not patchwork
creatures.

Two things, at least. Language and architecture.
Older languages are more complex than newer
ones.

We still can't equal the feats of building the
pyramids or even older South American
buildings.
Look up ancient stone machining

Even Neanderthals, the men who have been so
maligned over the years by science, are not quite
the primitive ape men that they taught us about.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists

 

[pat34lee]

They know they are broken versions of these genes/gene pathways is because they are these genes/gene pathways and they no longer function.

They said the same thing about vestigial organs and junk DNA. They were wrong.
What makes you think they are right this time, when they still don't know what
most DNA does at different times in the life cycle. What parts are operating from
fertilization to when cells start to specialize? Then what parts? This can be asked
for any and every change in us, to birth to teething to puberty and old age.

Do you have an explanation for the things I've listed or not? Trying to hand wave them away or poison the well isn't the same as actually addressing them.

First, you would need to prove that they actually mean something
that can only be explained by evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How many animals have developed language, arts, culture
music, husbandry and agriculture, much less science and
religion? Then again, we're special creations, not patchwork
creatures.

Ah, OK. You consider us the declining intellectual pinnacle of evolution - because in almost every physical respect (apart from fine manipulation and long-distance endurance) we're the evolutionary runts of the litter.

Two things, at least. Language and architecture.
Older languages are more complex than newer
ones.

Complexity of itself means little. A simple counter-argument would that we've refined and simplified language, making it more efficient and functional.

We still can't equal the feats of building the
pyramids or even older South American
buildings.
Look up ancient stone machining

Popular myth. They were extraordinary constructions, and the methods used have been forgotten, but techniques have been demonstrated to achieve all that - if we wanted or needed to (see Building the Pyramids, Building Stonehenge on Your Own, etc). Instead, we build our own great constructions - the Great Pyramid is about 3 million cubic yards of rock - but the Panama Canal, built in the early 20th century, excavated 239 million cubic yards of soil & rock; we build incredible bridges; build dams over a mile long, containing 35 million cubic yards of concrete; dig tunnels 85 miles long; construct buildings nearly half a mile high; oh, and set up geostationary satellites 22,00 miles in space; send men 239,000 miles to walk on the moon; and send robots to roam Mars.

Even Neanderthals, the men who have been so
maligned over the years by science, are not quite
the primitive ape men that they taught us about.

And who discovered that Neanderthals were intelligent and cultured? Part of the problem you complain of is that media and educators tend to simplify the cautious speculations of experts and treat them as factual.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I said, it doesn't matter. Either species evolved or they didn't. And whatever political ideas the answer to that question "inspired" or didn't inspire has no bearing or relevancy to it's accuracy.

Where did I imply anything about the social consequences of ideas being relevant as to the accuracy of Darwin's theory?

The existance or source of the political (or whatever) idea of "Social Darwinism", has no impact on the truth value of the scientific model of biological evolution.

Don't you mean the "provisional truth value" of the scientific model(S) of biological evolution?

And there is no need to capitalize the word "theory" either, by the way.

Why not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that 2PiloVoid is confusing the layman definition of theory with the scientific definition of theory.

No ... I'm definitely not confusing them. I'm quite aware of the difference, as various posts I've made in other parts of CF will show.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where did I imply anything about the social consequences of ideas being relevant as to the accuracy of Darwin's theory?

I don't know if you did or not.
It doesn't matter. Whatever points your were discussing, right or wrong, justified or not, it does not belong in this thread. Because it has nothing to do with the validity of the scientific theory of biological evolution.

It might very well be that I agree with your points.

Don't you mean the "provisional truth value" of the scientific model(S) of biological evolution?

That's a given, as that is the way every idea in science is treated.

Why not?

Because there is no reason to.
It only confuses people about what the word means in a scientic context.

Is that what you were shooting for, by the way, by putting so much explicit emphasis on that word? To imply that, because it is called a "theory", that it doesn't need to be taken terribly seriously or something of the sorts?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No ... I'm definitely not confusing them. I'm quite aware of the difference, as various posts I've made in other parts of CF will show.

Then what was with the emphasis on the word? What point were you trying to make, by doing so?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No ... I'm definitely not confusing them. I'm quite aware of the difference, as various posts I've made in other parts of CF will show.

Then why did you feel the need to capitalize the word theory?