What is evolution, not what some think

Okay, enough!!

Please discuss the topic and not each other.
You are responsible for your own posts.

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Do not reply to this post, but know if the topic and posts stray, mod action will be required.

Why cant the average evolutionist accept some people cant accept evolution based on questions that still stand unanswered

Because most questions are indeed answered, you just don't like the answers and deny them each and every time it is explained. You treat evolution as a belief system and that's why people get irked by those type of comments. It's not either evolution or god, depending on your beliefs. Here are some better questions:

Why can't the average creationist accept that evolution and god can go together perfectly fine?

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

Your questions are about the big bang and abiogenesis, not biological evolution. If you ask specific questions about the theory that go beyond shock and disbelief I can try to help answer them. You could say that gravity is not a science because it doesn't have enough answers to those questions as well, but it doesn't make that true.

Please explain away, in dot form if you like, I await with baited breath, keep it simple

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

You keep changing the definition of evolution. Now you are talking about the layman's term which simply means change over time. Are you denying this concept now? When you equate biological evolution to a layman's term that can refer to almost anything in the world that ever changes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Evolution does not mean originate, it means change.

Now you haven't really responded to any of my recent posts, but if you could, please address this post and specifically outline which evolution you are denying and why. If you are denying the layman's version of the word, you are claiming that nothing ever changes over time. If you are talking about biological evolution (Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis), then you are referring to genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. You can't have it both ways because they are completely different meanings of the word.

So please, I don't care if you never respond to any of my posts again, please respond to this one and clear up your position. Which evolution are you denying? Change over time or genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. They aren't synonymous.

Thanks

originally posted by: Barcs

Why cant the average evolutionist accept some people cant accept evolution based on questions that still stand unanswered

Because most questions are indeed answered, you just don't like the answers and deny them each and every time it is explained. You treat evolution as a belief system and that's why people get irked by those type of comments. It's not either evolution or god, depending on your beliefs. Here are some better questions:

Why can't the average creationist accept that evolution and god can go together perfectly fine?

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

Your questions are about the big bang and abiogenesis, not biological evolution. If you ask specific questions about the theory that go beyond shock and disbelief I can try to help answer them. You could say that gravity is not a science because it doesn't have enough answers to those questions as well, but it doesn't make that true.

Please explain away, in dot form if you like, I await with baited breath, keep it simple

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

You keep changing the definition of evolution. Now you are talking about the layman's term which simply means change over time. Are you denying this concept now? When you equate biological evolution to a layman's term that can refer to almost anything in the world that ever changes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Evolution does not mean originate, it means change.

Now you haven't really responded to any of my recent posts, but if you could, please address this post and specifically outline which evolution you are denying and why. If you are denying the layman's version of the word, you are claiming that nothing ever changes over time. If you are talking about biological evolution (Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis), then you are referring to genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. You can't have it both ways because they are completely different meanings of the word.

So please, I don't care if you never respond to any of my posts again, please respond to this one and clear up your position. Which evolution are you denying? Change over time or genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. They aren't synonymous.

Thanks

I dont see enough valid evidence for either
People believe humans developed from primates over time, dont believe it.
People believe over time a single cell organism developed all the way up to a human, dont believe it
I believe a bird can grow a longer beak, but it is still a bird, dogs can be bread to have different types of dogs, but they are still dogs.

People believe that genetic mutations produce positive dna changes, dont believe it. I havnt seen any xmen running around.

I dont believe micro evolution leads to macro evolution, I dont believe its ever been seen in nature

Hows that?

Irrespective you are talking about biological evolution, please dont dismiss Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen, Stellar and Planetary Evolution the origin of stars and planets, Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

They are of more importance to me than biological evolution, simply because they all come before supposed biological evolution.

I understand why you want to frame this discussion around biological evolution, but I dont.

I am not here to win an argument, be converted to evolution, I am only here to say why I dont believe that evolution (for want of a better word) is acceptable to me and many others

I do not accept the entire theory of evolution either.
Why, you might ask.
To me it is just a patch work of assumptions and speculations.
Evolution in the long term can not be observed. What can be observed is adaptation.
People make the leap that if it happens in the short term and we see the changes in species, then it MUST be the same in the long term. Hence they believe everything adapted from a single celled organism to all the diversity we see today.
There is no proof of this.
It is my belief that we were given the ability to survive. All of the information we need to do so is already present. As environments change our genes can detect this and the needed information is passed on to comply with those changes.
This makes more sense (to me) than "survival of the fittest".
I in a extinction level event life would need to adapt fast. If it were to wait on these changes over vast amounts of time, chances are that nothing would survive. Yet, if said life was able to detect these changes and adapt accordingly it would be able to survive better. Efficiency is not evolutions strong point, yet that is what we see a lot of in nature.
Quad

a reply to: borntowatch

Howdy,

The mod was indeed correct. We've strayed from the topics at hand. So, I think I'll do a recap if you'll allow me, using some quotes... All quotes are from you, sorry I cannot format properly. Still new to these forums.

1.“One of the issues I am tired of having to explain is what evolution is, not just to me but recognised by the scientific community”
Well, we've discussed how important operationalizing terms is to a scientist. Biological evolution IS the evolution when someone randomly says evolution. Cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, even elemental evolution are ANALOGOUS to, not synonymous with evolution. Meaning, other fields borrow the term to as an analogy that shows change over time. It's not productive to lump them all together, as while they are all governed by the same physical forces, they all different processes...

2.“Sorry, abiogenesis is a reason I dont accept evolution, organic evolution or abiogenesis is a reason.”
That's kinda like saying, "I don't believe in gravity because no one knows where it comes from or how it first started." We have good reason to believe gravity exists, we see its effect in nature. Our models predict its existence. Another example, we see a runner in a marathon about five feet from the start line, running with the other runners, but we never saw that particular runner start the race. We then watch him finish the race. You can say he deceived everyone in those five feet from the start, but it is highly probable he indeed did start the marathon with the others, and there may one day be evidence to support that. We just need a photo of him at the starting line. This is what we call an analogous scenario.

3.“Cosmic evolution is the ground the house is built on, stellar evolution the foundation of the house, organic, the walls and finally the roof is your pet subject macro evolution.”
Apologies. This is an analogy, too. I see a problem with your logic though... In science, ideas fall and stand on their own. You can disprove how a "wall" works without saying that the "house" was bad. Each one of those theories has it's own evidence to support them, each claim was made independently of the others. This is why the model works so well. Other models that were made using completely different evidence support completely unrelated models. That's a good gauge for the accuracy of the model.

4.“As Mr Hydeman stated above
‘But like I said, the universe is trickier. No one currently has an answer’
there are many unanswered questions, these unanswered questions are my issue”
I wasn't clear there, so apologies. I was referring to the universe as being a "closed system." Traditionally one might expect it to be, but that is the tricky part. It might not be. Science and scientists are open to possibilities, and the possibility of parallel universes has received great attention in recent years. It might be the case that one universe can affect another.
Also, I will refer to the god of the gaps theory, because you are NOW effectively using it to support your beliefs. Let me explain. Even if the human race does not have the answer, it is not logically sound to say, "Ah, you don't know 'A,' therefore it must be 'B.'" Common fallacy, so I won't go on further. I will again, however, refer you to experts in their fields for evidence I cannot personally convey. Seriously, Dawkins used computer programs, models, and colourful displays. "Waking Up In the Universe." I can think of no better intro to the stuff. (Although, some info is a bit dated and I openly am a fan of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Dawkins apparently had issues with at some point?)

5.“People believe that genetic mutations produce positive dna changes, dont believe it. I havnt seen any xmen running around.”
Actually, that's just a bold assertion from ignorance. The ability to drink milk as an adult, lactose tolerance, is a mutation that likely originated in mostly European herding societies... The standard is lactose intolerance after infancy. (This mutatation basically allows for the continued production of lactase, an enzyme, that allows humans to digest the lactose in milk past infancy. Nifty how mutations work, eh? )
To jump the gun again, in case anyone (not specifically you, I'm not targeting you, so please do not feel offended.) wants to discuss how that potential was always there, well, yes. That's how mutation works usually. Let's not go into "no new information" territory, because then I would have to talk about bacterial nylonase discussion, and I am FAR from an expert on that... I will also leave the following link to wikipedia on beneficial mutations...
rationalwiki.org...

Now, I know you're not here to be convinced by my introductory level explanations. You were here to assert your beliefs and why you believe them. I'm only trying to educate you so that you may actually understand what you don't believe*.

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: peter vlar

At the risk of arousing the wrath of a mod ill take a bite here...

You know what Pete, I dont think there is any value explaining anything to you relating to the bibles impact on the Wester world.....so I wont

Pretty typical response and exactly what I would expect from you at this point. Why pontificate and make the original statement if you have zero intention of actually addressing your statements and claims? Self pious homilies make you sleep better at night? Its ironic, you won't listen to any answers provided to your questions nor will you respond to a question posed to you. Why post then? It seems counter productive if were not all here to learn from one another.

Here is a thought though, think about this statement just a little more than you would normally before replying.

Ask a question that requires a thought out answer and I'm all for it.

Did I post this thread to be won over by evolutionists and become one or did I post this thread to explain why I dont believe in evolution.

Consider that statement before replying, or better yet, dont reply

Oh I know full well you have no intention of actually trying to understand how evolution works let alone "be won over". I was simply hoping you would actually look at the evidence presented instead of pretending nobody offered any. It's kind of like standing in the middle of a garden and asking why there aren't any vegetables.

The saddest part of this whole thread is how most evolutionists dont understand the counter argument

I think you would be surprised at what "evolutionists" understand if you actually tried to listen to them.
.

Yes I may not know the ins and outs of evolution and all its side sciences but I have a reasonable understanding.

Then why such difficulty grasping the information people have presented to you? What you think is a reasonable understanding just doesn't seem to be the case from many people's perspectives and I'm not even the loudest detractor you have here.

You on the other hand have no idea of my beliefs, so base your understanding of my opinion on......???? nothing at all.

Thats not a great position to argue from.

You're specific personal beliefs, no. You're correct. But do I understand and know inside and out the fallacious arguments of evolution denying,I'm better than everyone else because I have the bible in my heart type people... Oh you bet I do. I grew up in an extremely orthodox Irish catholic family. I was an Altar boy for over a decade. I went to church 6 days a week, bible study, catechism, catholic school and on and on. so when I say I'm beyond aware of the deceit and refusal to acknowledge the facts that go along with that upbringing and life... I understand all too well. Ironic however that the charge you levy against me is one you are at least equally and egregiously guilty of. But it's par for the course with these types of conversations. So to sum up your point... No I am not arguing from ignorance. I've got an excellent perspective of both sides of the equation.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Barcs

Why cant the average evolutionist accept some people cant accept evolution based on questions that still stand unanswered

Because most questions are indeed answered, you just don't like the answers and deny them each and every time it is explained. You treat evolution as a belief system and that's why people get irked by those type of comments. It's not either evolution or god, depending on your beliefs. Here are some better questions:

Why can't the average creationist accept that evolution and god can go together perfectly fine?

Evolution is not a science I accept because it doesnt have enough answers.

Your questions are about the big bang and abiogenesis, not biological evolution. If you ask specific questions about the theory that go beyond shock and disbelief I can try to help answer them. You could say that gravity is not a science because it doesn't have enough answers to those questions as well, but it doesn't make that true.

Please explain away, in dot form if you like, I await with baited breath, keep it simple

1. Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang

2. Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

5. Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.

You keep changing the definition of evolution. Now you are talking about the layman's term which simply means change over time. Are you denying this concept now? When you equate biological evolution to a layman's term that can refer to almost anything in the world that ever changes, you are barking up the wrong tree. Evolution does not mean originate, it means change.

Now you haven't really responded to any of my recent posts, but if you could, please address this post and specifically outline which evolution you are denying and why. If you are denying the layman's version of the word, you are claiming that nothing ever changes over time. If you are talking about biological evolution (Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis), then you are referring to genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. You can't have it both ways because they are completely different meanings of the word.

So please, I don't care if you never respond to any of my posts again, please respond to this one and clear up your position. Which evolution are you denying? Change over time or genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. They aren't synonymous.

Thanks

I dont see enough valid evidence for either
People believe humans developed from primates over time, dont believe it.
People believe over time a single cell organism developed all the way up to a human, dont believe it
I believe a bird can grow a longer beak, but it is still a bird, dogs can be bread to have different types of dogs, but they are still dogs.

People believe that genetic mutations produce positive dna changes, dont believe it. I havnt seen any xmen running around.

I dont believe micro evolution leads to macro evolution, I dont believe its ever been seen in nature

Hows that?

Irrespective you are talking about biological evolution, please dont dismiss Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang, Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen, Stellar and Planetary Evolution the origin of stars and planets, Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.

They are of more importance to me than biological evolution, simply because they all come before supposed biological evolution.

I understand why you want to frame this discussion around biological evolution, but I dont.

I am not here to win an argument, be converted to evolution, I am only here to say why I dont believe that evolution (for want of a better word) is acceptable to me and many others

Two word answer: Fossil. Record.
Three word answer: READ. A. BOOK.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
So how exactly does the fossil record prove evolution? Could you explain a little further?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
So how exactly does the fossil record prove evolution? Could you explain a little further?

Others have on this thread. I am not going to restate what they said. You seem to think that there is still some kind of scientific debate over the viability of the Theory of Evolution. I have some news for you: there isn't. Evolution is only controversial amongst creationists, who either refuse to believe it out of some kind of religious idee fixe or who wilfully misunderstand it - again, out of some kind of religious idee fixe.

Hello,
Apologies for the previous post, I linked the wrong wiki. I would edit the post, but it's been too long. Fortunately, the content wasn't bad, so fair play, right? Anyway, here is the proper link to the ACTUAL wikipedia page for mutation. The "beneficial" section is the most relevant, but it's all there...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now to be fair, Quadrivium's question is valid, and although it may have been answered previously in this thread, it brings up another important point that might have been missed. Science doesn't provide "proof." Nothing is absolute in science. (Although you can say with varying degrees of certainty, 99.9% is not 100% accurate.) Even the germ theory of disease is not proven. Semantics are fun... operationalizing terms is necessary. To repeat, science does not prove. It provides evidence, supports, and lends credence to theories using data from observations and experimentation.

A better question is, "how does the fossil record support the theory of evolution?" Well, the fossil record provides a unique set of data independent of lab-based experimentation. What does that mean? The data we collect by observing fossils in sequences of rocks gives us a framework of the life that used to live on Earth. It's true, humans can't live 100 million years, and we cannot yet live a lifetime, die, and then revive ourselves some length of time in the future to observe directly speciation. Luckily, the fossil record indeed records some of the life forms that lived on Earth over those vast periods of time, with a heavy bias toward marine invertebrates with hard shells (and/or lived in sediment) due to the inherent nature of fossilization...
For a quick geology lesson, fossils were one living organisms that died and were buried (usually rapidly, except in the case of fragments, such as incomplete shells/coral fragments that could theoretically exist for thousands of years in the ocean without being completely destroyed.) in sediments. These sediments were then covered by more layers of sediment and maybe more organisms. As the sediment gets deeper, it gets hotter, and the overlying sediment puts pressure on it. This compacts and cooks the sediment into sedimentary rocks. We OBSERVE this behavior today, we extrapolate(safely so) that these processes happened similarly in the past with variations that we can observe and make note of. (Fossilization does not occur the same way everywhere. Scientists are aware of this, but I am explaining the general formula, if you will.) Since we have no model better fitting the observed facts in science, we go with it.
Back to fossils lending support to evolution. We gotta talk transitional forms, but not yet. Now, (I hope it was this thread...) I've earlier explained how geographic isolation leads to speciation, so I will spare you the details here and ask you kindly to look for that post, or use a more scientific, peer-reviewed, and detailed source. The sequences of rock, as I've said, tend to show a general younger age as you move upwards (assuming no folds/faults and sedimentary origins.). As you go to younger rocks, the fossils show a progression. In the earliest strata, you may find a species of trilobite. As you progress upwards, you get to new species of trilobites that look less and less like the original until you get to a point in which there are no more trilobites in the record. This works as you go upwards, and it also works as you go laterally across oceans. For example, before the split of Pangaea, what are today the landmasses of Appalachia and Morocco would have been close together in what could be conceived of as a shallow ocean basin. (Large prevalence of limestone indicates tropical sea.) We find similar phacopid trilobites when geologists predict that this is the case. As the Atlantic Ocean opean, the trilobites got separated. So, as you go into older rocks, the trilobites in Appalachia look less and less like those in Morocco. Speciation.
Geographic separation of similar species with changes over time is just one of the ways the theory of evolution predicted what was observed before it could be observed. Yay. NOW for transitional forms. Vertical changes in rock type (stratified sedimentary rock) represent a horizontal change in sedimentary environment. So, you get sand deposited where today? Coastlines. You get silt where? Deltas. Calcareous ooze that turns into limestone? Shallow tropical marine seas. As the environment changes, animals that are unfit to that environment (not survival of the fittest, no one says that anymore... Survival of the fit enough to reproduce is more accurate.) die out, leaving smaller groups of less genetically variable organisms to invade the niches left by dead organisms. Again, those better suited to the environment will reproduce more often (in most cases) and based on environmental pressures, you see changes, adaptation. It can be as subtle as hooved animals developing padded feet (camels/llamas) to the development of limbs into fins (whales.). I will refer you to the following page of information, again wikipedia. Introductory stuff, so use the citations to find the peer-reviewed papers these summaries are based off if you need more information.
en.wikipedia.org...

In conclusion, there's really only one assumption necessary to make all of this evidence support the theory of evolution. It's called uniformitarianism. Basically, it states that the natural and physical processes we observe today operate the same way in the past. For example, gravity still did what gravity does. Light still did what light does. Radioisotopes decayed with the same half-life. These are things we could call laws today. The law of gravity describes a natural phenomenon. This is not to say the Earth has remained the same, because scientists are well aware it hasn't. We have observed komatiites, a rock type common in the Archaean and not today (theoretically because the Earth was much much hotter due to the latent heat of formation...). Is it really unreasonable to assume that the laws that govern the universe have remained constant?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
So how exactly does the fossil record prove evolution? Could you explain a little further?

Others have on this thread. I am not going to restate what they said. You seem to think that there is still some kind of scientific debate over the viability of the Theory of Evolution. I have some news for you: there isn't. Evolution is only controversial amongst creationists, who either refuse to believe it out of some kind of religious idee fixe or who wilfully misunderstand it - again, out of some kind of religious idee fixe.

I will admit, I have not read the entire thread. With that said, if no new evidence about the fossil record has been presented, in the past few days, then it would probably be the same regurgitated responses.
You are incorrect in your assumption that I do not know or am familiar with the "theory". I find that most times I understand it better than many who claim to follow it.
The fossil record does not support the theory as many people claim. There really is no reason to get personal about it.
I understand that you have been told countless times that the fossil record supports evolution......but have YOU ever seen this evidence? It is simple to say "it has been showed, many times" yet another thing all together to actually show where and how.

reply to: hydeman11
The very first paragraph of your wiki link sums up my argument.

Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. In all actuality the fossil record does not look like a tree as many claim. Most fossils show up intact and fully formed. We speculate what the precursors were and we form the "tree" to follow those speculations. It is assumption on our part. It may very well be completely different.

a reply to: Quadrivium

First, thank you for actually taking the time to look at the source. I do appreciate that. I spend a lot of free time constructing these posts and I'm happy to see it isn't all wasted.

Now then, that's a reasonable, logic-based argument. You want to see the entire chain. I understand that kind of doubt in the gaps. Unfortunately, some of those gaps will have to remain unfilled. As said, fossilization is a selective and improbable (for any one organism) event. This makes truly understanding taxonomy difficult, indeed.

This is why taxonomy has fallen in favor of cladistics in modern times. To quote the same wiki page,
"Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to a later population of a different species.[10] ..." (it then goes on to rightfully say that, still, most fossils are indeed not actual ancestors, but rather show features that would illustrate the transitional features). To be honest, I just learned about that population of plankton. That's truly more complete a story than I thought there ever could be in the fossil record.

Cladistics is nifty. It eliminates some of that grey area in taxonomy and more clearly illustrates that "dogs do not give birth to cats." Dogs, of course, only give birth to dogs. Which then differentiate. And then differentiate until they can no longer reproduce with fertile offspring, making new "species"... Forgive the example, it is one of my favorites. lol (But it should be noted that this is a generalized format for the process, obviously it hasn't yet happened for dog subspecies.)

Where science fails, new science prevails. Where there are gaps, the most likely scenario based on observations is provided. Humans are fallible creatures, so sometimes those models (like the model that states MOST evolution is a slow, gradual process of tiny changes of long periods of geologic time) fail and new models are made to better explain those observations. As in, yes, you are right that most species appear relatively quickly in the fossil record (except in cases where there was slow, gradual change of long periods of geologic history... like horseshoe crabs or coelacanths). This is why there has been the rise of punctuated equilibrium, which better explains the observations made.

As for things not looking like a tree? Well, yeah... it's an analogy. I'd say it looks more like large branching bush. Maybe it depends on scale?

But in all honesty, I understand your reasoning, and that I appreciate too. A lot of what you might have learned might have indeed been wrong. Punctuated equilibrium and cladistics are pretty new... Even plate tectonics wasn't accepted until the 50s or 60s, despite their being decent evidence of similar fossil species in places like Appalachia and Morocco, the same rock types in South America as in Africa, and the general fit of those continents' shapes.

To conclude, I'll be intellectually honest and say there could very well be other, better explanations for these phenomena. Maybe a god is deceiving us or testing our faith, or maybe that's just how that god did things. I don't see the evidence supporting those two scenarios, so I'll stick with the models that are supported by observations for now, as they can be used to predict information, as can be evidenced of the prediction of the location of tiktaalik in geological time and space. (That's a cool story, too, by the way. I'll link it if you want to read it, but it is also mentioned in the previous link to wikipedia on transitional forms... It's own page is perhaps better though.)

en.wikipedia.org...

Thats a valid post and it goes in to some detail to explain, in a nutshell, the issues I have.
Corny as it sounds I commend you on the effort and reasoning, it is by far the most even headed and understandable dialogue I have read in any debate forum before.
Thats saying something


Though to quote Quadrivium
"To me it is just a patch work of assumptions and speculations.
Evolution in the long term can not be observed. What can be observed is adaptation."

Each issue on their own amounts to a small twig, gathered together they are a bonfire

As for the universe being open or closed, well the open system better fits our theory , gives the theory legs , lets work harder on explaining theorys to show its open. Theory built on theory.

Your lactose tolerance statement doesnt prove evolution, just adaptation. I didnt see any xmen whose power was to drink milk. i read about a fungi withstanding radiation? How much radiation? You know that a Cockroach can withstand radiation 10 times our ability, something to do with metabolism, so the fungi can build up an immunity to radiation
I think you are drawing a very long bow.

The micro is an accepted and proven evolution, the macro however?

We can go on and on and on.

You see these questions as separate rocks and boulders strewn around a field that need to be navigated past, I see these issues as a wall that needs to be removed.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: borntowatch
a reply to: peter vlar

Pretty typical response and exactly what I would expect from you at this point. Why pontificate and make the original statement if you have zero intention of actually addressing your statements and claims? Self pious homilies make you sleep better at night? Its ironic, you won't listen to any answers provided to your questions nor will you respond to a question posed to you. Why post then? It seems counter productive if were not all here to learn from one another.

Here is a thought though, think about this statement just a little more than you would normally before replying.

Ask a question that requires a thought out answer and I'm all for it.

Did I post this thread to be won over by evolutionists and become one or did I post this thread to explain why I dont believe in evolution.

Consider that statement before replying, or better yet, dont reply

Oh I know full well you have no intention of actually trying to understand how evolution works let alone "be won over". I was simply hoping you would actually look at the evidence presented instead of pretending nobody offered any. It's kind of like standing in the middle of a garden and asking why there aren't any vegetables.

The saddest part of this whole thread is how most evolutionists dont understand the counter argument

I think you would be surprised at what "evolutionists" understand if you actually tried to listen to them.
.

Yes I may not know the ins and outs of evolution and all its side sciences but I have a reasonable understanding.

Then why such difficulty grasping the information people have presented to you? What you think is a reasonable understanding just doesn't seem to be the case from many people's perspectives and I'm not even the loudest detractor you have here.

You on the other hand have no idea of my beliefs, so base your understanding of my opinion on......???? nothing at all.

Thats not a great position to argue from.

You're specific personal beliefs, no. You're correct. But do I understand and know inside and out the fallacious arguments of evolution denying,I'm better than everyone else because I have the bible in my heart type people... Oh you bet I do. I grew up in an extremely orthodox Irish catholic family. I was an Altar boy for over a decade. I went to church 6 days a week, bible study, catechism, catholic school and on and on. so when I say I'm beyond aware of the deceit and refusal to acknowledge the facts that go along with that upbringing and life... I understand all too well. Ironic however that the charge you levy against me is one you are at least equally and egregiously guilty of. But it's par for the course with these types of conversations. So to sum up your point... No I am not arguing from ignorance. I've got an excellent perspective of both sides of the equation.

I am happy to learn, happy to listen to answers, my questions though dont have any answers, they dont have any answers that satiate my curiosity, any answers I can believe without faith.


You see I already have a faith in Christ that teaches me and have learned over time is that I am no better than anyone else, it has also taught me to be patient caring and loving, though I enjoy apologetics, hence this thread about why I dont believe.

This thread was started basically to say I understand why some people accept evolution and I dont have an issue with that.
I have Christian friends who are evolutionists as well, just that they say evolution was guided by God. Me on the other hand, I have some serious issues that stop me from accepting evolution, other than that can we get along?

I noted you denied the bibles influence on the west and your negative attitude that accompanied it.

If you are truly interested in learning what influence the bible had on your society (providing you come from a western culture) I would suggest reading Mangalwadi's, The book that made your world
billmuehlenberg.com...

Though I dont think you will due to bad past experiences

Its sad you were at a bad church, I was a Catholic as a youth as well, I well know the story.
But I have found not all religions and religious people are like that

a reply to: borntowatch

The only way anyone gets to understanding a topic is by discussing a topic and truly listening to the responses, whether these actions ultimately reinforce one's beliefs or shatters them.

With regards to adaptation, it seems we are in agreement despite the semantics of the issue. That said, the lactose tolerance provides a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate a model of evolution in a punctuated equilibrium sense.

If I may, I'd like to present a hypothetical situation. Imagine an Earth much like ours, but more primitive. There are only two sources of food, milk and wheat. One day, the wheat all dies. The plants rot, leaving only milk as a food source. All humans without the mutation for lactose tolerance die, leaving the entirety of the new population of humans lactose tolerant. Reasonable scenario, right? (Other than the simpleness of it, but forgive it that.) Now consider this kind of thing continuing with any and all changes in the environment over the course of a few billion years. Is it not within the realm of possibility that the resulting population might end up completely unlike the original?

As for X-Men, well, Stan Lee didn't understand much about gamma radiation, either, or else the Hulk would be a completely different story... Though I get your point. You want to see more dramatic changes, but it doesn't need to be dramatic when you've got time. It can be something as simple as being slightly more resistant to cold or heat, or saline waters, or fresh waters (You can call this natural variation in a population). I know this seems counter-intuitive to what I just said with punctuated equilibrium, but it really isn't. It's all about what actually survives environmental pressures (including other organisms' predatory aggressions) to reproduce. You call this adaptation, scientists call it evolution. If we called it glarbledglox, would you agree to it? ;D (I wouldn't, too hard to pronounce with no etymology to help infer meaning.)

I see these things, much like you do, as connected. It is the series of events that created all we know and that we don't. But I do not see a field of boulders, but rather a watershed. The individual models we have are the tributaries, individual streams that lead into the big river. Lots of kinks and bends in those streams, but they all point toward that big river. Of course, sometimes we hit a dam, or we find out that one stream is geologically unrelated to the rest of the watershed. That doesn't mean we discount all the other streams as part of the watershed.
(I do appreciate the boulder field analogy though. It isn't a bad analogy for trying to find answers. Thank you for showing a geologically oriented mind some rocks.)

In the end, I think people should be able to believe what they want, as long as it does not hurt or hinder others. The problem I see is that many people do not understand what they do not believe in (saw it first hand growing up in rural Appalachia). If you have reasonable doubts, so be it. But as it is, I am comfortably sure that there are no reasonable doubts other than a potentially deceptive deity planting false evidence. I see no evidence to support any deity, so it must therefore follow that the data is not deceptive.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Quadrivium

First, thank you for actually taking the time to look at the source. I do appreciate that. I spend a lot of free time constructing these posts and I'm happy to see it isn't all wasted.

Now then, that's a reasonable, logic-based argument. You want to see the entire chain. I understand that kind of doubt in the gaps. Unfortunately, some of those gaps will have to remain unfilled. As said, fossilization is a selective and improbable (for any one organism) event. This makes truly understanding taxonomy difficult, indeed.

This is why taxonomy has fallen in favor of cladistics in modern times. To quote the same wiki page,
"Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups. There are a few exceptional cases, such as some marine plankton micro-fossils, where the fossil record is complete enough to suggest with confidence that certain fossils represent a population that was actually ancestral to a later population of a different species.[10] ..." (it then goes on to rightfully say that, still, most fossils are indeed not actual ancestors, but rather show features that would illustrate the transitional features).

To be honest, I just learned about that population of plankton. That's truly more complete a story than I thought there ever could be in the fossil record.

Cladistics is nifty. It eliminates some of that grey area in taxonomy and more clearly illustrates that "dogs do not give birth to cats." Dogs, of course, only give birth to dogs. Which then differentiate. And then differentiate until they can no longer reproduce with fertile offspring, making new "species"... Forgive the example, it is one of my favorites. lol (But it should be noted that this is a generalized format for the process, obviously it hasn't yet happened for dog subspecies.)

Where science fails, new science prevails. Where there are gaps, the most likely scenario based on observations is provided. Humans are fallible creatures, so sometimes those models (like the model that states MOST evolution is a slow, gradual process of tiny changes of long periods of geologic time) fail and new models are made to better explain those observations. As in, yes, you are right that most species appear relatively quickly in the fossil record (except in cases where there was slow, gradual change of long periods of geologic history... like horseshoe crabs or coelacanths). This is why there has been the rise of punctuated equilibrium, which better explains the observations made.

As for things not looking like a tree? Well, yeah... it's an analogy.

I'd say it looks more like large branching bush. Maybe it depends on scale?

But in all honesty, I understand your reasoning, and that I appreciate too. A lot of what you might have learned might have indeed been wrong. Punctuated equilibrium and cladistics are pretty new... Even plate tectonics wasn't accepted until the 50s or 60s, despite their being decent evidence of similar fossil species in places like Appalachia and Morocco, the same rock types in South America as in Africa, and the general fit of those continents' shapes.

To conclude, I'll be intellectually honest and say there could very well be other, better explanations for these phenomena. Maybe a god is deceiving us or testing our faith, or maybe that's just how that god did things. I don't see the evidence supporting those two scenarios, so I'll stick with the models that are supported by observations for now, as they can be used to predict information, as can be evidenced of the prediction of the location of tiktaalik in geological time and space. (That's a cool story, too, by the way. I'll link it if you want to read it, but it is also mentioned in the previous link to wikipedia on transitional forms... It's own page is perhaps better though.)

en.wikipedia.org...

Reading your post, could I infer, ever so slightly, you understand why some people dont accept evolution?

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: borntowatch

If I may, I'd like to present a hypothetical situation. Imagine an Earth much like ours, but more primitive. There are only two sources of food, milk and wheat. One day, the wheat all dies. The plants rot, leaving only milk as a food source. All humans without the mutation for lactose tolerance die, leaving the entirety of the new population of humans lactose tolerant. Reasonable scenario, right? (Other than the simpleness of it, but forgive it that.) Now consider this kind of thing continuing with any and all changes in the environment over the course of a few billion years. Is it not within the realm of possibility that the resulting population might end up completely unlike the original?

Reasonable scenario, I agree, just seems lucky it was milk, something the body can adapt to. But what if it was only wheat and Iocaine powder (bad example).
What if the food source was something we can not adapt to, extinction, the weather became to hot/cold, extinction?
I agree we can adapt but our ability to adapt is not limitless.

If the earths temperature increased a thousand fold over millions of years, reasonable scenario, right? (Other than the simpleness of it, but forgive it that.) , could humanity adapt because they have time, or will the fire destroy them.

I dont see time being the factor, I see that the adaptation as the factor.

reply to: hydeman11
First let me thank you on the thought provoking responses. Despite what some may think, this topic can be discussed in a civil manner.

On fossils and the tree of life:
Most times all we have to go by is a stone image of an organism that was once alive. While we have two or more fossils that look a lot alike in stone, they may have been totally different in life. The limbs on the tree of life are theoretical, we assume what the precursors of a fossil may have looked like and fill in the blanks.
Here is an article I thought you might find interesting:

www.evolutionnews.org...

originally posted by: borntowatch

I am happy to learn, happy to listen to answers, my questions though dont have any answers, they dont have any answers that satiate my curiosity, any answers I can believe without faith.

You see I already have a faith in Christ that teaches me and have learned over time is that I am no better than anyone else, it has also taught me to be patient caring and loving, though I enjoy apologetics, hence this thread about why I dont believe.

This thread was started basically to say I understand why some people accept evolution and I dont have an issue with that.
I have Christian friends who are evolutionists as well, just that they say evolution was guided by God. Me on the other hand, I have some serious issues that stop me from accepting evolution, other than that can we get along?

You're right, we should be able to get along and i would prefer to engage in a more civil dialogue. Can you at least understand why someone would get extremely frustrated when sharing information they have spent decades studying, writing and researching about and after taking the time to repeatedly try to give some context, you essentially shrug your shoulders and say 'eh... I just don't see it'. It doesn't make me any more mature for the tone I seem to take all too often in threads like this and if you can get over the fact that I believe rocks in the ground and I can get past the fact that you talk to an invisible man who will love you when you're dead we would probably have a lot of common ground lol

I noted you denied the bibles influence on the west and your negative attitude that accompanied it.

Well, I don't think I deny the bibles influence on western or any other culture, I just deny that its been an entirely positive one. Certainly there are some beautiful Christians who have contributed positively to our society over the years,I would be lying to deny that. I simply disagree that the church overall was the impetus for positive influence when history shows, particularly in Europe, that it was just another mechanism for controlling the ignorant and illiterate masses because the only people who were literate for a great deal of European history prior to the Rennaisance were members of the clergy.

If you are truly interested in learning what influence the bible had on your society (providing you come from a western culture) I would suggest reading Mangalwadi's, The book that made your world
billmuehlenberg.com...

Though I dont think you will due to bad past experiences

Ahhh... But you'd be wrong! My world view is actually shaped from looking at and trying to understand both sides of the argument. It's what led me to want to study anthropology after comparing the science( and were talking about the 80's when compared to now anthropology was just a wee babe in regards to what is known or in your perspective, accepted) to the theology and I came to the realization that there was a very real reason everyone at my church was a raging alcoholic, because their god if it existed had forsaken them and wasnt giving back any of what they gave him. But I digress... I don't want to turn this into a theological debate.

Its sad you were at a bad church, I was a Catholic as a youth as well, I well know the story.
But I have found not all religions and religious people are like that.

No, not all churches are like the Catholic Church, some are actually worse. I know many wonderful christians who aren't bigoted or judgmental.some of them are still cool with me when I bring up LaVeyan Stanism and my personal philosophies based on my association with it. But it wasn't the church that turned me off, it was realizing, at least in my mind, that it all looked ridiculous when I applied the scientific method to any of it. nothing could actually hold up to scrutiny and all the epithets of 'just have faith' weren't cutting it. and then comparing Hebrew mythology to earlier mythologies just sealed the deal for me.


For what it's worth, I appreciate your responses and giving me a better insight to your position. We will just have to agree to disagree because nothing is going to waver either of us from where we are. As I said above, I'm sure aside from this contentious debate we likely have more in common than not.