The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Okay, can somebody who fully understands evolution (melatonin?) explain this article to me?
Evolution is deterministic, not random, biologists conclude from multi-species study

This one is needs no explanation, but it's interesting anyway:
There is 'design' in nature, Brown biologist argues at AAAS

Personally I think there's no reason a belief in a higher power and the belief in the theory of evolution need to be mutually exclusive.

Kinda like the author of this book:
Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God.

The 70-page book, "Science, Evolution and Creationism," was published Thursday. It states, in part, that "attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist," The New York Times reported.

Emphasis mine.

This is hilarious. Seriously. First of all, Darwin's theory of evolution does NOT deal with how life was created, but rather how one organism evolves from another. Secondly, evolution is observable. Thirdly, the only reason people think Creationism is real is because it's in the Bible (a book which relentlessly contradicts itself). If Creationism wasn't written in the bible, then no scientist would ever suggest it to be the cause for life as we know it.

These discussions are insulting to the intelligence of people in general. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It's never, ever correct about anything unknown to man at the time it was written (the Bronze age). It's about as legitimate as L. Ron Hubbard's own tall tale.

Don't insult my intelligence by calling evolution into question when there are mountains of evidence pointing towards it, and absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER pointing to the floaty-guy-in-the-sky-pulling-the-world-out-of-his-ass-in-a-few-days theory, apart from said flakey, inaccurate book. It makes you look foolish, and does nothing to discredit the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it, because as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If that's the case, and I suspect it is, you are very dangerous indeed.

Originally posted by dave420
Don't insult my intelligence by calling evolution into question when there are mountains of evidence pointing towards it, and absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER pointing to the floaty-guy-in-the-sky-pulling-the-world-out-of-his-ass-in-a-few-days theory, apart from said flakey, inaccurate book.

OK, I'll play. What if the book in its original content was accurate before numerous "translations" of it took place?

It makes you look foolish, and does nothing to discredit the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

Dude, we really could do without the insults.

Leave discussing evolution to people who have more than a shred of knowledge about it, because as they say, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". If that's the case, and I suspect it is, you are very dangerous indeed.

Simply WOW. You are saying that members aren't allowed their opinion? I beg to differ. Again, please leave out the insults.

Originally posted by dave420
the scientific method, which is what got you the computer you're looking at right now, the power to power it, the food you just ate, the clothes you wear, and every single other thing in your life.

WOW! You mean my hair only grows because of the scientific method? Gosh, I'm glad that scientist discovered things like hair. And fingers. Man was that a great invention! I can't imagine holding my coffee cup without them.

You realize the the scentific method only explains what's already in existance. It doesn't "discover things" or create anything. It's just a method of observation.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Okay, can somebody who fully understands evolution (melatonin?) explain this article to me?
Evolution is deterministic, not random, biologists conclude from multi-species study

Yeah, the study shows that selection processes are very important in evolution, more important than more random mechanisms like drift. Sort of shows what Darwin was saying all those years ago, what we've known for ages, and why when people call evolution 'chance' and 'random', they don't know what they are talking about.

The conclusions from the abstract state:

We propose that developmental evolution
is primarily governed by selection and/or selection-
independent constraints, not stochastic processes
such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.

Kiontke et al., 2007

This one is needs no explanation, but it's interesting anyway:
There is 'design' in nature, Brown biologist argues at AAAS

Personally I think there's no reason a belief in a higher power and the belief in the theory of evolution need to be mutually exclusive.

T'is true. I don't buy into it, but there is no reason why they can't exist in the same mind. Ken Miller is great, what he's trying to do is to 'reframe' the evolution vs creationism debate. Obviously people see design in nature (and Dawkins suggested this years ago coining the term 'designoid'), so Miller is suggesting that, yes, design is a feature of biology. However, the designer is evolution by natural selection

Kinda like the author of this book:
Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God.

The 70-page book, "Science, Evolution and Creationism," was published Thursday. It states, in part, that "attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist," The New York Times reported.

You'd be lucky to get many creationists to even read it. Ayala has tried though, which is cool.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by Rasobasi420



While both sides may have provided false evidence occasionally in the past, only one has provided any real, solid evidence.


It is all about evidentiary standards. In a court of law we would have one side with piles of supporting documents based on actual physical observations while the other side has an old book with stories of magical giants, magical dragons, angels and magical talking animals.

It shouldn't be difficult to guess the outcome of such a case.

reply to post by melatonin


I haven't read the report you sent me (thanks by the way ) but is it related to what is said in this article? -- Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again

i think evolution is proven by the simple fact that bacterias all over the world evolve


also the fact that the darker someones skin the less likely they are to get burned by the sun

or the fact that eskimos make glasses that are horizontal lines or slits because the sun gets so bright, well look at their eye shape...also look at the eye shape of the people who are native to other places where there is a lot of snow

if you want to talk about evolution please open your eyes to what's right on this planet right now and the differences in climate and which people come from which climates and how they have evolved to live in that climate

you're never gonna see an african with a sunburn

Originally posted by nikolat23
It is all about evidentiary standards. In a court of law we would have one side with piles of supporting documents based on actual physical observations while the other side has an old book with stories of magical giants, magical dragons, angels and magical talking animals.

But in a court of law, the prosecuting attorney should not be called ignorant for pointing out flaws in the defense's case. Or for questioning the methods to evaluate their evidence (which is often quite a founded source of contention when it comes to questioning evidence in support of evolution).

Also, there is some evidence to substantiate creationist claims. The thing is, it is often tossed out simply for the sake that it has been provided by a creationist or adherents of ID.

reply to post by weedwhacker

We are one species, on one planet, in a suburban Solar system, on the outskirts of a typical Spiral galaxy, one galaxy out of BILLIONS of others...each galaxy containing BILLIONS of stars...but, for some reason, WE, and WE alone, are somehow 'special'? The hubris required to believe this astounds me.

Do you have any scientific evidence to back up that belief? No...Thats what I thought.


To all:

I am a Christian. I have a degree in Anthropology. I only say that to say that the problem I have with Evolutionary theory is the way it is presented. It is not presented to young minds as a working theory but as a proven "Law". There is most definately supporting evidence for the theory, but it has never been proven. Throughout my schooling up through college, it was never presented as a theory. It is fact. That I cannot agree with.

I do not speak for the OP but I think what she is saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that so many(most???) present the THEORY, that is not proven law, as something that we who are not believers in, must be ignorant, etc... for not believing.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I haven't read the report you sent me (thanks by the way

) but is it related to what is said in this article? -- Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again

Group selection is another level of selection suggested to be important for evolution. The previous article was evolution at the developmentla level, group selection is above the level of the individual. Thus, selection at the social level etc.

Always been very controversial actually. It's sociobiology (also associated with evil evo psych), so has been viewed negatively by all kinds of people, from sociologists to other biologists. What the 2 Wilsons suggest is that evolution happens at multiple levels, from genes to the social group.

I've always been amazed at the attacks on evo psych in psychology, and elsewhere. The cognitive dude, Fodor, has made a right ass of himself on this issue, IMO.

ABE: it's an open access article if you want it, just google for 'quarterly review of biology' and search for 'wilson' on their webpage.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by AshleyD
This thread isn't intended to engage in yet another creation vs. evolution debate inasmuch as it is to discuss the gullibility and hypocrisy of those who adhere to the theory of evolution and accept supporting evidence with virtually wholesale approval.

I agree wholeheartedly... I am on the fence as far as which I believe, some days Creationism seems more plausible, other times evolution, but most of the time I don't subscribed to either theory. Both theories suffer from the same problem, that life has no reason to exist, it either spawns into existence from the elements and evolves or is brought into existence by a God who's existence is then in question since God would undoubtedly be a form of life if He exists... I hate the fact that mainstream science and its followers treat any alternative theory, Creationism or not, with disdain, as though Darwin and the evolutionists have some monopoly on the truth... its the same with other alternative theories in other fields, main stream scientists need to be more open minded, how can you say something isn't correct if you refuse to research it or count it as a possibility?

I say we need a major paradigm shift, something mainstream science seems to be avoiding at all cost by studying the same old things and throwing out any chance of alternatives...

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


How about both theories? Maybe "God" was playing around, think "science project" just to see what would evolve?

reply to post by AshleyD

Also, there is some evidence to substantiate creationist claims.

Can you provide links to the evidence? Is it a fossilized unicorn, skeleton of a giant, or speaking snake? Enlighten us.

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
if you want to talk about evolution please open your eyes to what's right on this planet right now and the differences in climate and which people come from which climates and how they have evolved to live in that climate

I think you've described microevolution nicely. I don't think anyone would argue that.

Now please swim down to the deep end of the pool and talk about macroevolution.

I'm not surprised that a species will slowly develop darker skin, thicker fur, longer beaks over time. I'm simply confused as to how, over time, a single creature could branch off to create fish, horses, birds...people. That's some serious mutation right there!

I'm genuinely curious how evolution explains the emergence of completely novel species. It doesn't seem that there is a complete enough fossil record to support that kind of lineage.

africans don't get sunburns

Originally posted by ag2000
It is not presented to young minds as a working theory but as a proven "Law". There is most definately supporting evidence for the theory, but it has never been proven.

Do you have the same issues with 'atomic theory'?

No theories have been 'proven'. But t'is good to see you accept it has supporting evidence. That's why it's a theory. The gold standard in science.

A law isn't actually as good as a theory. A law is just a general relationship, even Newton's laws only apply under some circumstances, and even then only as an approximation.

Rather the theory of evolution, than the 'law' of evolution.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Essedarius
I'm not surprised that a species will slowly develop darker skin, thicker fur, longer beaks over time. I'm simply confused as to how, over time, a single creature could branch off to create fish, horses, birds...people. That's some serious mutation right there!

A serious amount of little mutations over a large period of time?

If you accept that microevolution can produce new genes and traits, and new species (which we have seen), then add up lots of little microevolutions over time, and we get a big macroevolution.

And, remember, we are not talking about a single creature. But a population. Thus, for example, part of a population becomes separated for some reason. Gene flow between the two populations stops. One evolves one way, the other another way. Soon we have two independent species (speciation). Add much more time, and evolution could take these two populations to widely differing states.

Can you can show a barrier to stop such changes over time?

If not, we have lots of evidence for macroevolution, and that is sufficient to accept it as a valid explanation.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

people always split micro and macro

it's the same thing EVOLUTION

reply to post by melatonin



Thats my point! Its presented as FACT, when it is not. I was taught in school that evolution is fact, when it is not. It should be represented as what it is, a theory. Acknowledging that there is supporting evidence is completely different than accepting that evidence as proof that the theory is proven.



[edit on 3-3-2008 by ag2000]