The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by Howie47
So when the author concludes his article with. "Could researchers combine all of what's known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo," What exactly does he mean. If he doesn't mean what he says?

He's saying that if you want an absolute number, then that is going to be very difficult to provide.

Thus, what people shouldn't say is that the genome between humans and chimps are 99%ish similar (which is absolute, and probably wrong). What they should say is that the genes between humans and chimps are 99%ish similar (that is relative, focusing on one aspect of the genome, and is observed).

Originally posted by Howie47
So when the author concludes his article with. "Could researchers combine all of what's known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? "I don't think there's any way to calculate a number," says geneticist Svante Pääbo," What exactly does he mean. If he doesn't mean what he says?

You are arguing over minutia. Who cares what the % difference actually is? It is the model that is important. We know that we are more closely related to chimp's than other species, because our sequences are more closely related. The % difference is irrelevant, it is just used to determine lineage. This was the prediction, that chimps would be the closest relative. When we test this (by evolving different strains of bacteria in the lab for example), we can identify the phylogenetic tree by sequence similarity. It's been tested honestly countless times and never fails.

The 99% or whatever claim of similarity is basically for the layman. No molbio researcher would say we are 99% similar in terms of information content, because some parts of the genome (those with high information content) are more important to function, and changes in those regions produce marked differences in traits. While we may be able to determine our closest relative, we are still very, very different from chimps in the ways that matter.
//sufu sci

[edit on 4-3-2008 by sufusci]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Beach, as usual your summarisation is on the ball.

I have followed this thread from the outside, determined not to post and pass comment.
I have yet to see anyone post any substantial information on I.D.

As a product of my times I would take a lot of convincing to deny evolution.
(You can take the man out the bible belt but you can't take the bible belt out the man!)
I very much doubt the validity of creationism.
I would like to know more about I.D. as I accept it maybe a possibility.

I am willing to consider reasoned, considered and researched arguements.
Unfortunately, I see very little of it just opinions supporting pre-conceived ideas.
The verbal table tennis detracts from what could be an informative debate for many of us.

I know the main protagonists from both camps are educated, well intentioned individuals; perhaps less passion and more reason would benefit us all.

What crumbs of information that have been offered have been informative, I just need a bit more meat on the bones to enable me to even start considering the pro's and con's of either viewpoint.

Hope I haven't come across as being a bit prissy or self-righteous it's just that too many threads recently have become bogged down in opinion and dogma and offered little in terms of facts and details.

Just my two pennorth worth!

Originally posted by sufusciaccept the model is correct.
The alternative to evolution is this model:
God + finger snap for all offspring of all species, bacteria included = directed genetic change.

I have seen no evidence for the alternative model.

The reason why you’ve seen no evidence is because you haven’t looked for it. Someone like yourself whom always believes they are right, rarely searches for evidence contradictory to their beliefs. Even if you accidentally stumble upon a truth, you will most likely ignore it.

By accepting evolution as correct and imposing it on other people, you are calling it a truth. I have not claimed anything i've said, to be a truth. I've merely stated the way i personally feel. I have not even told you to change your ideas and notions of the world. Merely to take a more intellectually humble stance on something that is not quite complete yet.
Hypothetically, at any moment if someone presented to you a better model than evolution you would more likely than not, reject it. And tou can't consider lack of evidence a reason to believe something doesn't exist.

Fail. The statement of that first sentence is a preconceived notion. So is the third.

The reason why it's called a blindespot is because hypothetically, YOU can't see it. To incline that you or anyone else does not have one is pure ignorance. Because even if you or anyone else was devoid of biased. There would be no way to prove that. It’s a catch-22.

You said I don’t try my best to efface my beliefs when taking on a question without any evidence . . . explain how I have CHANGED my beliefs from being agnostic if I didn’t have an open mind. Have you ever changed your beliefs?

Give me one example that proves an alternative model. One. Even AN alternative model that isn't just "magic".

Give me an example that PROVES evolution. Was that a serious challenge you proposed? Cause mine is.

Again, show me any alternative model sans magic.

I'm not claiming to have an alternative model. If you read my post you'd probably understand that. I said flat out, "I don't claim to have any answers of significance, but the things i do know, i know to be true to myself."(Something that you left out of my quotes in your response); Which means that they are not necessarily true, but i personably believe them to be. You would have everyone believe the way you think is immaculate just because you must be right.

Evolution has had 50 years of research prove it to a point where it is one of the most tested model's in history. Molecular biology has taken this level of proof to an extreme degree, as given the volume of data we have, and that NONE of it refutes evolution or supports an alternative model, we are in a quandary here.

The problem is that people who claim to understand biology yet clearly don't understand aren't taken seriously by scientists. I'm sorry, it's that simple! They make obscure claims or references to debunked/rubbish research, and simply are holding on to their beliefs rather than seeing what is there before their eyes: evolution is a logical, thoroughly tested, working model of genetic progress
// sufu sci

You speak in absolutes my friend, which is not the way a man of science conducts himself.

I never said evolution wasn’t logical and I even said that it will be the greatest theory ever contrived for it’s time.

You claim that I’m doing many things. .. But I’m missing the part where I was arguing. I’m also missing the part where I made obscure claims, tried to debunk anything, or held onto my beliefs obstinately.

Oh wait . . . you did all of those things . . .

My original post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 4-3-2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Beachcoma
That would contradict Bigwhammy's claim of ID not being religious.

Oh well. Dembski hisself said:

"intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" (Dembski, 1999, p84).

More evidence of the theological shell-game.

ID is not religious. Just because he takes a single line out of context. It does not change the definition of the theory. ID postulates an intelligent cause. That could be any religion in the world.

Except the religion of evolution.

Another matter: ID has it's own journal?

Yeah, it was called Progress in Complexity, Information and Design (PCID).

'Progress' stopped in November 2005.

Well Progress was an ID journal but what about these papers?
They are from respected journals...

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

They all postulate ID theory... None from the journal you are criticizing.

Can you guess what happened at that time?

No what happened?

Peter S. Williams, ‘The Design Inference from Specified Complexity Defended by Scholars
Outside the Intelligent Design Movement – A Critical Review’, Philosophia Christi, Volume 9, Number 2, 2007, p. 407-428, available on-line @ www.discovery.org/a/4499

Oh do tell what happened. I have more.

edit to fix quotes

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Bigwhammy]

When controversial new ideas are put forward in science, the intellectual community tends to react with anger and stubbornness, regardless of the quality of the research. This is known as ‘opposition to new paradigms.’ As with other controversies, this opposition has been fed by political fires. Evolutionists are quick to label those who produce intelligent design peer-reviewed literature as ‘creationists,’ ‘religious nuts,’ or ‘pretend scientists.’ The fact that intelligent design uses entirely natural and secular arguments does nothing to deter evolutionists from using these labels. This type of rhetoric causes scientists and laymen alike to form opinions about the intelligent design movement long before they know anything about it.”

www.allaboutscience.org...


And another enlightening perspective on this topic.

Rational people must realize that absolute conformity to the Darwinian doctrine, and the repression of theories, ideas and information that expose the irrationality of that doctrine, is never completely successful in any society. Censorship on the part of the totalitarian evolutionist establishment is bad for science, bad for the voices of rationality, but most of all catastrophic for our students and for the generations to come, because they will suffer the brunt of the crisis the Darwinists created. If we are to progress, we must take action to break the Darwinist monopoly on science, and on the thinking of our children.

American Chronicle

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
ID is not religious. Just because he takes a single line out of context. It does not change the definition of the theory.

An intelligent cause. That could be any religion in the world.

Except the religion of evolution.

Behe accepts common descent.

Of course ID is religious. We even have evidence of when it evolved from creationism to intelligent design.

The transitional form is 'cdesign proponentsists'

You might be interested to read about a very rare transitional fossil between creationism and “intelligent design” that was recently discovered by Barbara Forrest during her exploration of some exhibits filed in Kitzmiller v. Dover, namely drafts of the original “intelligent design” book Of Pandas and People.

The amazing beast, “cdesign proponentsists” was discovered directly above strata containing the well-known and ubiquitous species “creationists”. Previous research by Forrest had dated the layer the missing link was found in to the latter half of 1987.

pandasthumb.org...

Some great stuff uncovered by Barbara Forrest (in fact, her evidence was crucial for the case - check the court transcripts):

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

What happened in 1987?

I'll give you a clue. It was similar to what happened at the end of 2005.

Well Progress was an ID journal but what about these papers?

They are from respected journals...

Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004. [philosophical and dodgy maths article]

John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.[not a respected journal, and just a kooky review by Javison]

S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239. [a review paper that was retracted for editorial misconduct - no test of hypothesis]

M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.[not evidence of ID]

[my additions]

As I said, not one article testing the ID hypothesis. We've got a film, though. And we know who that's aimed at:

Welcome to the Expelled Challenge web site where, as a Christian school or a Christian home school group, you will have a chance to win up to a $10,000 donation while educating your students, parents, and staff of the controversy that is surrounding the Intelligent Design and evolution debate

linky-dink

No what happened?

Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
An intelligent cause. That could be any religion in the world.

Except for the fact that the 'ID movement' was FUNDED by christian groups and was proven to be just a ploy to get religion into schools. The wedge document proved this without a doubt .

Edit. as does the fact that this 'science' starts with the conclusion of an ID [GOD] and then nitpicks evidence to fit to suit their religious agenda.

Except the religion of evolution.

Why do you keep saying this? Saying it's a religion doesn't make any sense.
It is a science that apparently contradicts your religious beliefs. If you keep calling it a religion [in an attempt to pretend the two are in competition] it will never suddenly make your religion scientific or evolution/ToE somehow religious.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Sorry but the source of the funding has nothing to do with the simple premise
"An intelligent cause". Duh, of course people who are smart enough to believe in God are going to fund it. The money doesn't change the validity of the theory.


I keep calling it a religion mainly because it bothers you.

Evolution is a religion

see it bothers you doesn't it?

Don't you find it absolutely fascinating that the OP who started this whole shenannigan hasn't got the moral fibre to actually respond to most of these posts? Is this an indicator perhaps of their intent?

I think the title of the thread basically tells you everything you need to know.

Ever hear of baiting? Yep - I've been known to do it myself - but I don't go around accusing others of something I'm equally guilty of myself. While others have no compunction in this manner whatsoever.


That's the worrying factor here. This thread was designed purely to inflame opinions - I'm sure the OP is just this second sitting back and having a real good snicker...


'Nuff said.

J.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

Sorry but the source of the funding has nothing to do with the simple premise
"An intelligent cause". Duh, of course people who are smart enough to believe in God are going to fund it. The money doesn't change the validity of the theory.


I keep calling it a religion mainly because it bothers you.

Evolution is a religion

'Smart enough to believe in god'?? Heh - I LOVE it!! Is that meant to be irony? You do KNOW what 'irony' is right? errmm...yeah?

Doesn't bother me - no. People of your 'persuasion' never do.

J.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by jimbo999
That's the worrying factor here. This thread was designed purely to inflame opinions - I'm sure the OP is just this second sitting back and having a real good snicker...

Where there's muck there's brass, my friend

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by riley

 

Sorry but the source of the funding has nothing to do with the simple premise
"An intelligent cause". Duh, of course people who are smart enough to believe in God are going to fund it. The money doesn't change the validity of the theory.

It has everything to do with the "intelligent cause premise" as it presumes a deity/god.. therefore it is religious. ID has also been dependent on 'christian' zealots picking and choosing "evidence" and reinterpriting it to fit their own agenda and predetermined conclusion. No credible scientist would ever do that; they would look at ALL the evidence and then see where leads without fear of it contradicting his/her beliefs.

I keep calling it a religion mainly because it bothers you.

Evolution is a religion

see it bothers you doesn't it?

eh okay. it did bother me but it doesn't now that you've given us some insight into your level of maturity and intellectual reasoning.. :shk: You shall no doubt thrive in american politics..

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jimbo999
That's the worrying factor here. This thread was designed purely to inflame opinions - I'm sure the OP is just this second sitting back and having a real good snicker...

Where there's muck there's brass, my friend

Ain't THAT the truth!

I'd honestly love to see just one (1) verifiable, accredited survey that did NOT show that the vast majority of intelligent, educated, rational people out there actually DON'T believe in a god. To the best of my knowledge - none exist.

When one does show up - be sure to let me know, ok?

Until then - well, I guess we're on the same team huh?


J.

Originally posted by jimbo999
Don't you find it absolutely fascinating that the OP who started this whole shenannigan hasn't got the moral fibre to actually respond to most of these posts? Is this an indicator perhaps of their intent?

I think the title of the thread basically tells you everything you need to know.

Ever hear of baiting?

Perhaps the political baiting rules only applies to certain groups or people? ATS standards here have certainly been lowered by basically condoning the blatently biggoted OP. The precedent has now been set..

[edit on 4-3-2008 by riley]

Originally posted by jimbo999
Don't you find it absolutely fascinating that the OP who started this whole shenannigan hasn't got the moral fibre to actually respond to most of these posts? Is this an indicator perhaps of their intent?

Have you not been paying attention, my dear Jimbo? I don't think anyone has replied to this thread more than me. Thanks. Sorry I don't live on ATS and am also participating in other threads that demand my attention. More personal hogwash. I'm not going to butt in between two other people that have a conversation going or gang up on anyone. It also seems condescending to jump to someone's defense when they are doing a good job and didn't ask for my help.

But thanks for telling me your opinion on what all you think I need to respond to. This thread took on a life of its own and I'm not capable of responding to every single comment on all 20+ pages, especially when many of the comments weren't even addressed to me.

Originally posted by riley
Perhaps the political baiting rules only applies to certain groups or people? ATS standards here have certainly been lowered by bascially condoning the blatently biggoted OP. The precedent has now been set..

I'm still waiting on you to prove to me how evolution is purely a political topic. Last I checked, it was a scientific topic that is sometimes brought up in politics but mainly education. Again, saying "Doze cwazee democwats sure doo wuv dat evowution dewusion' would be political baiting. Not simply bringing up the subject of evolution. Please, Riley. Come on now.

reply to post by melatonin


You attack it as a political/religious issue not a scientific one. I don't have kids so the school thing isn't really my forte. To me it's like no duh religious people are going to get behind a theory that acknowledges a creator. Of course. So what? That has noting to do with the theory.

All those papers I listed were hard science. You were acting like no other journals had published ID. You were wrong. So you are not defending a scientific perspective but a political/religious one. Your God given right to freedom of religious expression it appears. And what would that be? Naturalism?

reply to post by AshleyD


Interesting angle. However, it was YOU who begun this whole mess - therefore, I think you need to show a bit more zeal in your chosen subject matter. You did choose it after all. Or would you rather refute your initial observations publicly and close the thread? That's fine either way, but I really think if you open up a can of worms, you need to have the guts to throw it into the trash if need be.

Regards,


J.

reply to post by riley

evolution is a religion

Does that count as baiting? Just wondering. Since you guys now admitted evilloution is not science. Is it political or religious baiting? Perhaps it's religious baiting... considering the context.