Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[pitabread]

The problems you've described with specific examples suggest that you haven't done enough 'research' to understand evolutionary explanations for them - if you did, you'd be asking different questions. It would only take a little reading on those topics - detailed research isn't necessary for a basic understanding.

This is exactly why I think their "research" is based entirely on creationist sources.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem seems to be that you're too easily satisfied. The ideas about evolution you present are clearly incorrect - no wonder you find them implausible. The problems you've described with specific examples suggest that you haven't done enough 'research' to understand evolutionary explanations for them - if you did, you'd be asking different questions. It would only take a little reading on those topics - detailed research isn't necessary for a basic understanding.

For example, symbiosis and your parasitic wasp vs spider examples are classic examples of coevolution; the former cooperative, and the latter antagonistic (an evolutionary 'arms race'). If you knew this and found it implausible, you'd be expressing doubts about the specifics of coevolution in those cases, not the doubts that you posted.

Similarly, just Googling for "evolution of the circulatory system" will give you plenty of descriptions of the stages involved (and how examples of each stage can be seen in creatures alive today). If you'd followed such explanations, you'd be expressing doubts about the evolutionary explanation, not expressing incredulity about imaginary problems.

This is literally (and I am using the right word!) what I did last night for one of my posts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is literally (and I am using the right word!) what I did last night for one of my posts.

Oh, dear! I'm sorry if I seem to have plagiarised you - it was quite unintentional - I don't recall seeing your post. My bad.

 

[Ophiolite]

Calling someone an "evolutionist" is roughly the same as calling someone a "gravitationalist".

There's also the jibe "globist" used in some other threads in a parallel sub-forum. I also accept the gravitational theory and the spherical shape of the Earth that it creates, but I'm not a globist or a gravatationalist either, and my spell checker rejects both terms a well , just regular old physicist who'd rather not deal with GR.

Oh dear. This nonsense crops up from time to time. If Ernst Mayr, one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis, was happy to embrace the term "evolutionist" then it should be good enough for both of you also.

 

[pitabread]

Oh dear. This nonsense crops up from time to time. If Ernst Mayr, one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis, was happy to embrace the term "evolutionist" then it should be good enough for both of you also.

Yup. The term "evolutionist", while not common, does get used. It's even been in the title of a few legitimate books on the subject, I believe.

Personally I find it a convenient term on these forums to distinguish from those who accept the modern ToE versus those who do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh dear. This nonsense crops up from time to time. If Ernst Mayr, one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis, was happy to embrace the term "evolutionist" then it should be good enough for both of you also.

That may be, but it is usually used as a pejorative by those that oppose the theory. The use of the term "gravitationalist" is merely used to show how a person is not being consistent in their reasoning.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yup. The term "evolutionist", while not common, does get used. It's even been in the title of a few legitimate books on the subject, I believe.

Personally I find it a convenient term on these forums to distinguish from those who accept the modern ToE versus those who do not.

Precisely. At one time I had assembled an extensive list of its use in textbooks and research papers. A hard drive crash and careless back-up put an end to that!

There is a similar misunderstanding over macro-evolution that I've just addressed in another thread. i.e. it is not a cynical invention by Creationists, it is an important and active field of study. I'm in the process of preparing an OP for a thread on the matter.

 

[pitabread]

That may be, but it is usually used as a pejorative by those that oppose the theory.

I don't find it overly pejorative even when used by creationists. Again, given that legitimate biologists have used the term, I don't think we should be overly sensitive about it.

 

[Ophiolite]

That may be, but it is usually used as a pejorative by those that oppose the theory. The use of the term "gravitationalist" is merely used to show how a person is not being consistent in their reasoning.

Those who oppose the theory misuse just about every term related to evolution. It would be ridiculous to avoid using them just because Creationists don't understand them, or misapply them. Yet you single out a single term and let the Creationists isolate you from its use just because they use it as a swear word. Sorry, SZ, but that is a flawed approach.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Those who oppose the theory misuse just about every term related to evolution. It would be ridiculous to avoid using them just because Creationists don't understand them, or misapply them. Yet you single out a single term and let the Creationists isolate you from its use just because they use it as a swear word. Sorry, SZ, but that is a flawed approach.

This is a fair point. I'm ok with the term "evolutionist" = "evolutionary biologist" as a profession or sub-specialty, though I think the latter is more appropriate in places like this to avoid confusion with ideology. My real problem is with the term used as to mean "evolution believer" (in a "faith" connotation) as a follower of "evolutionism" as some sort of biological/scientific religion. What they really mean when the call people like me an "evolutionist" what they really mean is "reasonably informed about the origin of species".

Anyway, since I am neither a biologist of any kind (evolutionary or otherwise), nor do I follow any sort of religion (traditional, theistic, pseudoscientific, new-age, parody, or even Jedi) the term "evolutionist" really doesn't apply to me. (Though I wasn't directly referred to as such.)

 

[Shemjaza]

I haven't seen it in a while, but I've seen Creationists get confused that we don't know the minute details of Darwin's books or ideas.

I think just projecting the attitudes about scripture onto the Origin of Species. I think it's what leads to the idea that if they can poke a hole in Darwin all the evidence and research since will just disappear.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I haven't seen it in a while, but I've seen Creationists get confused that we don't know the minute details of Darwin's books or ideas.

I think just projecting the attitudes about scripture onto the Origin of Species. I think it's what leads to the idea that if they can poke a hole in Darwin all the evidence and research since will just disappear.

That's something I knew, but hadn't really come to mind in this convo. (No "but Darwin said this" so far.) Most recently I've heard of quotations from the Book of Alven in the parent forum.

The odd thing is I've read more of the bible (Genasis, Exodus, Mark, and a few other chapters, almost all as a non-believer) than I have ever read from Darwin (none).

We keep getting this misapplication: Treating science (or "atheism") like it's a religion that we follow, when it's not. Treating texts on science (or "atheism") like scripture, which it isn't. Treating leading scientists like prophets or pronouncers of dogma (Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc. have all been wrong about some things and right about others). So much of the communication failures here could be alleviated if some participants would just realize that science isn't a substitute religion with all the trappings (or even at all like a religion.)

 

[DaveISBA]

Congratulations! You now accept evolution. [These things *ARE* evolution.]

How are these things evolution? The light moths did not evolve into dark moths because of predation! The light and dark colored moths already coexisted. Predators reduced the population of light moths is all that happened!

Moth are the worst example to try and prove "these things *ARE* evolution". Moths if anything have exhibited (stasis) staying recognizably the same throughout their history of existence! To quote from a phys.org article "researchers in the Netherlands have discovered Lepidoptera [moth, butterfly] fossils that are older than any previously found, proving these (familiar insects) have been around for at least 200m years." my emphasis! If you're suggesting this so called experiment proves moths will change into no-moths in the future...that is pure imagination not back up by the historical paleontological facts!

 

[Shemjaza]

That's something I knew, but hadn't really come to mind in this convo. (No "but Darwin said this" so far.) Most recently I've heard of quotations from the Book of Alven in the parent forum.

The odd thing is I've read more of the bible (Genasis, Exodus, Mark, and a few other chapters, almost all as a non-believer) than I have ever read from Darwin (none).

We keep getting this misapplication: Treating science (or "atheism") like it's a religion that we follow, when it's not. Treating texts on science (or "atheism") like scripture, which it isn't. Treating leading scientists like prophets or pronouncers of dogma (Darwin, Einstein, Dawkins, etc. have all been wrong about some things and right about others). So much of the communication failures here could be alleviated if some participants would just realize that science isn't a substitute religion with all the trappings (or even at all like a religion.)

I think the interesting thing is when scientists aren't even right about science.

Someone can be one of the most visionary and successful scientists but if they make declarations they can't justify with evidence, it might as well be a statement from Johno from the pub.

 

[pitabread]

How are these things evolution? The light moths did not evolve into dark moths because of predation! The light and dark colored moths already coexisted. Predators reduced the population of light moths is all that happened!

It's an example of the change in allele frequencies in a population over time (via natural selection).

Which is your basic textbook definition of the process of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How are these things evolution? The light moths did not evolve into dark moths because of predation! The light and dark colored moths already coexisted. Predators reduced the population of light moths is all that happened!

Moth are the worst example to try and prove "these things *ARE* evolution". Moths if anything have exhibited (stasis) staying recognizably the same throughout their history of existence! To quote from a phys.org article "researchers in the Netherlands have discovered Lepidoptera [moth, butterfly] fossils that are older than any previously found, proving these (familiar insects) have been around for at least 200m years." my emphasis! If you're suggesting this so called experiment proves moths will change into no-moths in the future...that is pure imagination not back up by the historical paleontological facts!

See the other reply by pitabread, but I wasn't talking about speciation, just evolution. A population responding to external stimuli (selection pressures) are exactly what evolution is about. Sometimes that causes a species to split into 2, sometimes it causes a species to change so much that it couldn't have interbred with the earlier population (non-existence of time travel notwithstanding), and sometimes it only changes somethings superficial (like color) but not behavior or breeding patterns, but they are all change. Evolution means change, without a modifier and on this sub-board we mean "biological evolution".

 

[Kenny'sID]

And therein lies the rub. You don't have a good conceptual or factual understanding of biology and evolution, and you don't have any desire to learn about it to improve your own understanding.

It looks like you're stuck.

Oh well.

Aussie Pete,
all you need do is ask him to explain to you what he says you don't understand, and do it all right here so it can be debated along the way by different people with knowledge on the situation, and that'll be the end of it. That is after you are done ducking the excuses that will bombard the room.

Another classic excuse. In his mind, one will never have enough knowledge to make up their own mind about so-called evolution, so you have no right to disagree with it, yet when you ask for that knowledge...well, do so, and see what happens.

You will then see who is really "stuck". lol

 

[Speedwell]

Aussie Pete,
all you need do is ask him to explain to you what he says you don't understand, and do it all right here so it can be debated along the way by different people with knowledge on the situation, and that'll be the end of it. That is after you are done ducking the excuses that will bombard the room.

Another classic excuse. In his mind, one will never have enough knowledge to make up their own mind about so-called evolution, so you have no right to disagree with it, yet when you ask for that knowledge...well, do so, and see what happens.

You will then see who is really "stuck". lol

In this case, the problem is not lacking knowledge, it's having the wrong knowledge. It's a common problem in discussions with creationists--we rarely get to the point of arguing whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, but about what it claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aussie Pete,
all you need do is ask him to explain to you what he says you don't understand, and do it all right here so it can be debated along the way by different people with knowledge on the situation, and that'll be the end of it. That is after you are done ducking the excuses that will bombard the room.

Another classic excuse. In his mind, one will never have enough knowledge to make up their own mind about so-called evolution, so you have no right to disagree with it, yet when you ask for that knowledge...well, do so, and see what happens.

You will then see who is really "stuck". lol

I doubt if @Aussie Pete would take up anyone on that offer. Creationists do not even understand the basics of science. They do not understand scientific evidence, and most do not understand the scientific method. To date no one has taken me up on my offer to go over either concept without even bringing evolution into the discussion. Do you think he will be able to have a serious discussion about biology itself?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

See the other reply by pitabread, but I wasn't talking about speciation, just evolution. A population responding to external stimuli (selection pressures) are exactly what evolution is about. Sometimes that causes a species to split into 2, sometimes it causes a species to change so much that it couldn't have interbred with the earlier population (non-existence of time travel notwithstanding), and sometimes it only changes somethings superficial (like color) but not behavior or breeding patterns, but they are all change. Evolution means change, without a modifier and on this sub-board we mean "biological evolution".

By which definition, Genesis describes evolution also
But change alone ≠ evolutionary progress

Yes a population of dark and light moths can lose a percentage of light colored ones
a large rock can wipe out dinosaurs and leave mammals
anti-bacterial agents can destroy many varieties of bacteria, leaving resistant ones to multiply

i.e. Natural selection is a filtration process, taking a larger set of variants and reducing to a smaller set. And nobody here debates that destruction, entropy, decay is a viable, observable process

But you see the problem here: This is taking us in exactly the opposite direction from the evolutionary 'tree of life' which depicts starting with a single simple organism and exploding into many more sophisticated ones.