Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[AV1611VET]

The talk here is just crazy talk.

Where did it start?

At the OP or after that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

QV please:

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

SOURCE

Translation: It would be yakked into obscurity.

Evolution on the No True Scotsman Principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that evolutionists would come up with some convoluted explanation as to how that specific rabbit wound up in that strata and became fossilized to the degree that it did. Most likely they would say they are working on the solution to the problem. A significant number would begin to question whether it is rabbit at all. Accusations of quackery would begin to be levelled and maybe even character defamation of the discovers would ensue if no viable explanation can be found. Look at the controversy over the dinosaurs soft-tissue discovery.

They might even adjust the Precambrian timeline accordingly.

 

[Radrook]

They might even adjust the Precambrian timeline accordingly.

Anything to avoid the impending totally unnacceptable horror of having their precious evolution idea proven bogus. Some might even have an epileptic seizure as a consequence from the mental strain of coming up with an acceptable explanation.

 

[Belk]

Anything to avoid the impending totally unnacceptable horror of having their precious evolution idea proven bogus. Some might even have an epileptic seizure as a consequence from the mental strain of coming up with an acceptable explanation.

So are all the biologists over the past 150 stupid or is it a vast multi generational conspiracy?

 

[Renee Tahass]

Perhaps if it were totally atheistic it would seem more sane to you?

I am an atheist perhaps that's why I think it's crazy talk.

Creationists should be trying to prove creationism not debunk evolution, how does that serve their cause?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look at the controversy over the dinosaurs soft-tissue discovery.

Actually... the only people who considered that "controversial" and a "problem", were creationists who thought they had an opening to start ranting.

Meanwhile, scientific papers explained the finding without any controversy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything to avoid the impending totally unnacceptable horror of having their precious evolution idea proven bogus. Some might even have an epileptic seizure as a consequence from the mental strain of coming up with an acceptable explanation.

So, do you also have real arguments, instead of this hypothetical opinionated nonsense without precedents?

 

[sfs]

So you agree there should be more skepticism of the tenets underlying evolution?

Huh? What tenets underlying evolution? I think scientists who blindly assume certain evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for some phenomenon should be more skeptical. I think any biologist who doesn't accept common descent should find another line of work.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Huh? What tenets underlying evolution? I think scientists who blindly assume certain evolutionary mechanisms are responsible for some phenomenon. should be more skeptical. I think any biologist who doesn't accept common descent should find another line of work.

The tenets behind evolution, that underpin it. Should there be more skepticism of it? That's what the Birch, Ehrlich paper is calling for.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, that's the way they reacted with the soft-dinosaur tissue discovery.

Do you really believe that or are you just trying to be nasty?

 

[sfs]

There being no better explanation does not necessarily mean the only available one is true.

A statement which is true about every explanation for every event ever, in every field of science and beyond science. Your response comes down to, "We can't know anything for certain." No kidding. But we still know lots of things with a high degree of certainty, and one of those things is that common descent is true.

 

[sfs]

The tenets behind evolution, that underpin it.

You didn't answer the question: what tenets behind evolution?

Should there be more skepticism of it? That's what the Birch, Ehrlich paper is calling for.

No, that's not what they're calling for. You read the paper? Where do they say that we should be questioning common descent?

 

[Mountainmike]

As I said, you leap to the defense of fusion because it is part of your faith so you fail to read what was actually said. I only commented on fusion at all response to another poster who equally failed to read what I said.

The issue I raised is there is no proven hypothesis, indeed so far credible hypothesis for how the chromosome count increase and diversity happened from your supposed accidental first replicatable cell, which I presume you think had only one strand of genetic material. The supposed chemical factory that popped into existence out of nothing is already too stupidly complex to be in any sense real!

That is one of many holes in the ragbag of theories , part proven hypotheses, unproven hypotheses, and complete guesses that constitute the so called ToE. It is a work in progress, that has to succeed for atheists because of their religion.

And the moment you accept the flaw in your reasoning over common descent, that by the very assumption that a first cell is possible by random chance, then others are equally possible if not probably, you have absolutely no logical basis for ruling out multiple starts that life had indepenent start points, so many species are the result of different origins. Common descent is therefore unprovable as well as unlikely.

Considering you dont have the first clue how a first cell came to be either, and abiogenesis is just a long word you use for a gaping whole in your atheist faith in life as a random accident, I suggest you are far less dogmatic about what is there and how it came to be.

I am dispassionate on this. It is of no consequence to me. I do care about claims being made no more or less than they really are, indeed for the proper context of science which most get wrong. It is a method for modelling repeatable things, and an axiomatic model in the limited space of our sences, a method which fits enough to be very useful. At a philosophical level it is Not a fundamental underpinning nor can it claim to be.

<more waffle>

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

You didn't answer the question: what tenets behind evolution?

No, that's not what they're calling for. You read the paper? Where do they say that we should be questioning common descent?

They identify that there is a problem with evolutionary theory being treated as dogma, and do in their conclusion call for more skepticism of many of the tenets behind evolution. While their focus is on population biology, they do make a wider point about the theory of evolution as a whole becoming dogmatic and a lack of skepticism prevalent.

 

[Larniavc]

Anything to avoid the impending totally unnacceptable horror of having their precious evolution idea proven bogus. Some might even have an epileptic seizure as a consequence from the mental strain of coming up with an acceptable explanation.

It would not be a horror: it would be amazing to find ToE was wrong.

The theory that took it's place would be more amazing still.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists should be trying to prove creationism not debunk evolution, how does that serve their cause?

What's to prove?

The Bible says it, that settles it ... case closed.

I think when Jesus comes back, one of the things He could do is take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them see for themselves what transpired during the Creation week.

 

[Speedwell]

And the moment you accept the flaw in your reasoning over common descent, that by the very assumption that a first cell is possible by random chance, you have absolutely no logical basis for ruling out multiple starts that life had indepenent start points, so many species are the result of different origins. Common descent is therefore unprovable as well as unlikely.

As I already explained to you, nobody is ruling out the possibility that abiogenesis occurred more than one or even that it is still occurring. However, there is a sound evidence that if life did indeed begin from multiple abiogenesis events our present ancestral line emerged so soon after as to make no difference to the concept of "common descent." There is no basis at all for concluding that the possibility of multiple events of abiogenesis give any support to your notion that different species stem from different abiogenesis events. The evidence is all against it.

Considering you dont have the first clue how a first cell came to be either, and abiogenesis is just a long word you use for a gaping whole in your atheist faith in life as a random accident, I suggest you are far less dogmatic about what is there and how it came to be.

I am dispassionate on this.

If you are dispassionate, why do you waste your time spewing out such nastiness in a way that includes not only atheists, but Christians and other theists on this board?

 

[sfs]

You're comparing mutation rates and recombination rates to the speed of light constant and assumptions we make in physical models... right. Even with these mutation rates, we still have to look at fossils and make deductions based on connecting dots etc. This is not the same as observing and making logical deductions.

If we're studying supernovae, we still have to observe spectra from individual instances, time curves, etc and make deductions based on connecting the dots. Do you really think you can take a set of observations about a supernova and deduce the correct model of supernova development from the data?

Oh I'm much more a physics man admittedly. Probably wasn't hard to tell. (Or maybe it was hard to tell, and I just appear generally scientifically ignorant in all aspects. That's okay, I'll take it on the chin )

Y'know, useful science.

You kind of didn't answer the question: how much research have you done in either field?

"easier subject matter to study" How dare you

That's one opinion I've earned the right to hold. Ever heard the saying, "Physics: the smartest people studying the simplest problems"?

"Long terminal repeats are the result of unique retroviral insertions"
Could you explain this one?

Not at the moment, I'm afraid -- I'm very pressed for time. Look up "endogeneous retroviruses" if you want to learn about the subject.

"empirical evidence that genetic differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations"
But we do not know how these differences actually occurred, because we weren't there in the distant past. Even if it suggests mutations, we don't actually know if there was a time they were one common ancestor, or they started with these apparent mutations.

We also don't know whether the supernova actually happened, because we weren't there for that either. All we can do is conclude that our observations conform to what we would expect if a supernova did occur X million years ago, or that our observations conform to what we would expect if common descent were true.

 

[Belk]

What's to prove?

The Bible says it, that settles it ... case closed.

I think when Jesus comes back, one of the things He could do is take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them see for themselves what transpired during the Creation week.

And since everyone knows Christians are infallible it is impossible for you to be wrong in your interpretation of your holy book so why bother with things like evidence?