Watch and consider IV

[pshun2404]

What about Atheist Tom Bethell?

You Tube

Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin Debates

 

[Job 33:6]

What about Atheist Tom Bethell?

You Tube

Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin Debates

pshun, just out of curiosity, if biological evolution is an interest of yours, have you considered doing tests of your own regarding it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What about Atheist Tom Bethell?

You Tube

Iconoclast: One Journalist's Odyssey through the Darwin Debates

Please summarize the main points of this video if you are looking for a sensible discussion on the topic.

My guess however, is that you are not really looking for a sensible discussion.

 

[pshun2404]

pshun, just out of curiosity, if biological evolution is an interest of yours, have you considered doing tests of your own regarding it?

Not sure what you mean. I am retired. I was a biomedical lab tech for years (protein quantitation, ellisa tests, cell culturing and so on). I have also studued evolution and been "interested" in it all my life (I was a convinced agnostic until about 34 years old).

I actually believe in evolution but question some of the conclusions and assumptions. I find that in some cases the hypothesis interprets the evidence as opposed to letting the evidence shape the hypothesis (for one example, the effect of speciation).

Now just as I believe in evolution, I do not believe everything some evolutionists say these things mean. I have the same issues with creation. I believe God, but I do not believe everything some creationists say these things mean.

 

[pshun2404]

Please summarize the main points of this video if you are looking for a sensible discussion on the topic.

My guess however, is that you are not really looking for a sensible discussion.

Perhaps not, but I was enticed by the fact that this man is a life long atheist (still is) who still believed in evolution, but was open minded enough to consider the questions some have asked. In fact he was asking some of the same ones even before people like Denton (a scientist who is still agnostic) or Behe (a scientist who is a theist) came along. Both believe in evolution.

It was also interesting to me that he concluded the exact same thing I have regarding speciation simply by observing the facts minus the hypothesis...

 

[Tanj]

A journalists opinion on what evolution is means?

I have trouble conceiving of something I would give less credibility to.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please summarize the main points of this video if you are looking for a sensible discussion on the topic.

My guess however, is that you are not really looking for a sensible discussion.

Very few points in the whole 12 minutes:
1. Evolution = survival of survivors. He doesn't address why survivors survive, he simply states that they do and therefore evolution is a circular argument.
2. Evolution is not falsifiable and therefore is not a scientific theory.
3. There is no evidence of change due to "blind processes"
4. Car yards are equivalent to fossil deposits and cars are designed
5. Reversion to the mean. Selectively bred dogs have been released to breed with wild dogs. Where those selected features are not selected in future generations this is contrary to evolution.
6. There are similarities with the idea of inevitable universal progress. Since this idea is discredited evolution must also be discredited.
7. Bacteria still exist, so how can we have evolved from bacteria?
8. We are far more complicated than bacteria, so how is it possible we evolved that far?
9. Nobody has explained where life came from.

And that's it in a nutshell. Pretty damning stuff, eh?!

 

[Job 33:6]

Not sure what you mean. I am retired. I was a biomedical lab tech for years (protein quantitation, ellisa tests, cell culturing and so on). I have also studued evolution and been "interested" in it all my life (I was a convinced agnostic until about 34 years old).

I actually believe in evolution but question some of the conclusions and assumptions. I find that in some cases the hypothesis interprets the evidence as opposed to letting the evidence shape the hypothesis (for one example, the effect of speciation).

Now just as I believe in evolution, I do not believe everything some evolutionists say these things mean. I have the same issues with creation. I believe God, but I do not believe everything some creationists say these things mean.

Ah I see. What is...the effect of speciation? What I meant in my own question is, say, if you have had doubt on a particular topic, have you tested or experimented or done science with relation to that topic? In this case, it sounds like there are things related to speciation that you are uneasy with. So might there be some form of work or testing you have done, to clarify on what it is youre thinking of?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Perhaps not, but I was enticed by the fact that this man is a life long atheist (still is) who still believed in evolution, but was open minded enough to consider the questions some have asked. In fact he was asking some of the same ones even before people like Denton (a scientist who is still agnostic) or Behe (a scientist who is a theist) came along. Both believe in evolution.

It was also interesting to me that he concluded the exact same thing I have regarding speciation simply by observing the facts minus the hypothesis...

So, you're not going to summarize the video?

 

[lesliedellow]

In fact he was asking some of the same ones even before people like Denton (a scientist who is still agnostic)

Denton's latest book got a positive review on the Biologos site, because its title was (deliberately?) misleading, and he wasn't saying anything particularly controversial.

 

[pshun2404]

Ah I see. What is...the effect of speciation? What I meant in my own question is, say, if you have had doubt on a particular topic, have you tested or experimented or done science with relation to that topic? In this case, it sounds like there are things related to speciation that you are uneasy with. So might there be some form of work or testing you have done, to clarify on what it is youre thinking of?

Thanks for clarifying...as for the point about speciation the video brought up, it is that all the process produces is variety nothing more...(types of bacteria remain a variation of that bacteria, finches remain finches, apes remain variations of that same kind of ape, etc.)...that in fact is what science has proved (not me), and it is all we ever have and still do observe in nature and in the lab (with the one exception of cross creature frankensteins we intelligently design when we unnaturally mix genomes).

Once assumed to be a primary cause (via mutation and natural selection) of how prokaryote could become eukaryote, fish become amphibians, amphibs reptiles and so on up to humans, after 150 years or research all we have demonstrated is that in amphibians we get newer varieties of amphibians over time, new varieties of finches over time (which includes physical changes like longer or shorter beaks and so on). Whether or not I have personally done experiments in this field is irrelevant to the fact of what IS. The original hypothesis, in any other area of research, would be adjusted to fit the facts or replaced, but that is not admitted in this area. Instead this unproven level of morphology is vehemently defended as if it is an established fact.

 

[DogmaHunter]

as for the point about speciation the video brought up, it is that all the process produces is variety nothing more...

Species are variety, nothing more.

(types of bacteria remain a variation of that bacteria, finches remain finches, apes remain variations of that same kind of ape, etc.)

Types of eukaryotes remain a variation of eukaryote. Vertebrates remain vertebrates. Tetrapods remain tetrapods. Mammals remain mammals. Primates remain primates. Humans remain humans.

Humans are a variation of primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...

...that in fact is what science has proved (not me)

Indeed it is.

, and it is all we ever have and still do observe in nature and in the lab

Yep!

(with the one exception of cross creature frankensteins we intelligently design when we unnaturally mix genomes).

Exactly! We don't find such "cross creature frankensteins" in nature!
Instead we only see creatures that neatly fall into a nested hierarchy (= a tree-like pattern where each sub-branch is a variation of its ancestral branch), exactly like evolution predicts!

Once assumed to be a primary cause (via mutation and natural selection) of how prokaryote could become eukaryote, fish become amphibians, amphibs reptiles and so on up to humans, after 150 years or research all we have demonstrated is that in amphibians we get newer varieties of amphibians over time, new varieties of finches over time (which includes physical changes like longer or shorter beaks and so on).

When you use words like "fish, amphibians, reptiles" and so on, you're probably thinking about extant "fish, amphibians, reptiles", like salmon, frogs and crockodiles. That's your firs mistake. See here:

present-day mammals and reptiles share an ancestor.
That ancestor shares an ancestor with present-day amphibians
That ancestor shares an ancestor with present-day fish.
All of them are variations of chordates

Secondly:

For a full scale view:
https://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/images/0003ti-11699.gif

You'll note that each branch is a sub-branch like in a family tree. Every "sub-branch" is a variation of the root branch.

Whether or not I have personally done experiments in this field is irrelevant to the fact of what IS. The original hypothesis, in any other area of research, would be adjusted to fit the facts or replaced

The theory (it stopped being a mere "hypothesis" more then a century ago) explains the facts just fine. Remarkably fine, actually.

Instead this unproven level of morphology is vehemently defended as if it is an established fact.

You can believe whatever you want off course. But honestly, you're just missing the fact that all this is, in fact,... as good as established fact.

Evolution theory explains the facts of biology so ridiculously well that we might as well call it a fact.

 

[pshun2404]

If you say so!

So according to your artwork, the idea is that birds, crocs, turtles, etc., all share a common ancestor...but it appears to be missing...can you show me this creature or name it?

 

[46AND2]

If you say so!

So according to your artwork, the idea is that birds, crocs, turtles, etc., all share a common ancestor...but it appears to be missing...can you show me this creature or name it?

We can't SEE electrons orbiting a nucleus. Are you just as doubtful about that?

 

[pshun2404]

We can't SEE electrons orbiting a nucleus. Are you just as doubtful about that?

Mainly because in reality they may not! They are more like wave/particle concentrations in a field. But please do not divert. The topic is why some atheists (highly educated ones) also have some notable questions between what we actually know, and what we are told (apparently not always the same which gives rise to reasonable doubt) regarding some areas (not all) of evolutionary hypotheses.

 

[46AND2]

Mainly because in reality they may not! They are more like wave/particle concentrations in a field. But please do not divert. The topic is why some atheists (highly educated ones) also have some notable questions between what we actually know, and what we are told (apparently not always the same which gives rise to reasonable doubt) regarding some areas (not all) of evolutionary hypotheses.

It's not a diversion. It's completely appropriate. There are things which are theorized in science for which direct observation is not possible. It doesn't make those theories non-scientific. The orbit of Pluto is another. We have not observed a full revolution, but it doesn't mean that we cannot predict its duration based on indirect observations.

As for your highly educated atheists...you do know that a highly educated JOURNALIST is hardly an authority on biology, correct?

 

[pshun2404]

Of course, and yes absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (that's exactly what some creationists claim as well) and "ancestor of the gaps" is a great hypothesis driven escape, often relied on (like "god of the gaps"). But good science is based on observable facts and experiment. "Ancestor of the gaps" is not supported by either at this point.

Now I hold it as an induced plausibility, that may or may not turn out to be actually true in most cases, but to post the supposition as if it is an established fact is a falsehood to avoid what I had posted about species which is a verifiable fact.

 

[46AND2]

Of course, and yes absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (that's exactly what some creationists claim as well) and "ancestor of the gaps" is a great hypothesis driven escape, often relied on (like "god of the gaps"). But good science is based on observable facts and experiment. "Ancestor of the gaps" is not supported by either at this point.

Now I hold it as an induced plausibility, that may or may not turn out to be actually true in most cases, but to post the supposition as if it is an established fact is a falsehood to avoid what I had posted about species which is a verifiable fact.

Evolution is supported by facts and experiment literally every single day. Every time a new genome is sequenced, a new fossil is found, a new living species is found, a new embryo is studied, and many, many other things, every time, it is being tested against the nested hierarchies which have been established through multiple completely independent fields of study, which agree with fantastic consilience. That is millions of observable facts, and thousands of upon thousands of experiments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you say so!

The evidence says so.

So according to your artwork

It's not "artwork". It's a graph on wich real-world data is mapped out.

, the idea is that birds, crocs, turtles, etc., all share a common ancestor...

That's not a mere idea, that's a genetic fact.

but it appears to be missing

Yes, on the count that that common ancestor has been dead for millions of years.

...can you show me this creature or name it?

No, because it's been dead for millions of years.

Can you show me the remains or the name of your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother? No? Do you feel like that is a good reason to suggest that you don't actually have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, and yes absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (that's exactly what some creationists claim as well) and "ancestor of the gaps" is a great hypothesis driven escape, often relied on (like "god of the gaps").

There is no such thing as "ancestor of the gaps". What there is, is the genetic facts of common ancestry.

We don't need to have access to your parents to determine that you and your siblings share the same parents. All we need for determining that you share ancestors, is a sample of both your DNA.

Obviously it is not possible to come up with the remains of a specific creature that lived millions of years ago. The part you don't seem to be getting is that we don't need to find that in order to determine the biological relationship between two creatures.

But good science is based on observable facts and experiment

Yes, like genetics.

Now I hold it as an induced plausibility, that may or may not turn out to be actually true in most cases, but to post the supposition as if it is an established fact is a falsehood to avoid what I had posted about species which is a verifiable fact.

Nope. Common ancestry of living things, definatly is a genetic fact.
You also don't seem to be realising that common ancestry of life is one of the facts that evolution theory explains.

Evolution theory explains the mechanism by which the divergence of life into all the variety we see, happened. That this divergence took place one way or another, is not really debateable any longer.