The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Originally posted by ag2000
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]

evolution is fact

it's a fact that africans won't burn in the sun

they have evolved so that they can withstand all of the sun they get on their area of the planet

"Moderate sun tanning without burning can also prevent sunburn as it increases the amount of melanin in the skin, which is the skin's natural defense against overexposure."

[edit on 3-3-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
people always split micro and macro

it's the same thing EVOLUTION

I quite agree....most people, AshleyD included, who are skeptical of evolution will state "Oh, I believe in microevolution because there is evidence for it, but not for macroevolution."

The real problem here is that people have a hard time imagining geological timescales which macroevolution takes place over. Microevolution inevitably leads to macroevolution over millions of years (and generations). It happens over such a long time period that even with the fastest reproducing organisms, we can still only observe microevolution in the laboratory. It would take an experiment lasting for generations upon generations to produce scientific evidence of macroevolution.

The closest thing to proof of macroevolution can be found in the speciation of some plants...We know that certain species of plants came about fairly recently, and have even been able to trace how this has happened. In fact, speciation in angiosperms is fairly well understood these days.

At any rate, I believe that understanding the timescale involved is the main problem most people have in understanding evolution.

Originally posted by ag2000
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.

It's actually fact and theory. It is a fact that life has changed over millions of years. The theory is the explanation for this observation.

I guess we can go into semantics here, but science doesn't do 'proven' in the sense of 100% absolute truth. We leave that to maths and religion. It deals with degrees of certainty. So, even when we say 'fact', it means a very high degree of certainity.

S.J. Gould wrote a good article on this issue.

linky-dink

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Sigh... another multipage thread of attempts at debate...

Creationism is not science because in science it is the evidence and observations that determine the conclusion.
Creationism is backwards. It has pre-determined the conclusion: God did it, absolutely, period. Any evidence that contradicts the Genesis account is discarded or ignored if not interpreted to fit the conclusion.

I said it before and i'll say it again :

I liken the debate to a jigsaw puzzle that does not have its picture on the box.
Science is trying to put it together, while religious dogma is looking over his shoulder.
Dogma feels strongly that the resulting picture will be a unicorn, while Science has speculated a hypothesis based on viewing the individual pieces that the picture is one of a bear.
The more Science puts it together, the more the puzzle begins to look like a bear.
Dogma begins to get more and more upset. "I don't know why you're bothering, it's obviously a unicorn!" he chortles.
Science shrugs, and continues assembling the pieces. The picture begins to look even more like a bear, until it's almost unmistakable.
Every once in a while, Science will have to correct an error and move a piece.
Religion shrieks with glee at this. "See?! You put that piece in the wrong place!
Your wishful thinking that it's a bear made you make a mistake!
Since you're wrong, I am therefore right, and the picture is of a unicorn!"

"But what about all the other pieces I did get right? Can't you see by the rest of them it's obviously a bear?" replies Science.
"You just don't want to admit it's a unicorn! Your arrogance is getting in the way!" screams Dogma lividly.
Science just shrugs, and continues with the puzzle.

To me "teaching" "creationism" in a classroom is like teaching nuclear physics in a church or mosque..It's idiotic and dangerous.

Just so you know: EVEN Gravity is a theory, Scientists have yet to witness or prove the existence of graviton-particles (the particles in an atom that give it it's gravity) , but they know they are there, they must be or gravity would not exists, yet they can't observe them. this is a Theory, just as the theory of Evolution is one.

Yet all you religious people see the word "Theory" and go insane with arguments like : it's just theory, it's not proven, so it's a load of bs"
Funny that you don't seem to imply nor request the same thoroughness of investigation when it comes to your own religion...

There is a fundamental issue with how religious people define the word "Theory" it seems... Maybe we should first agree on that before we even start debating...

Next step: I foresee these same religious zealots rejecting the Theory of gravity, defy it by faith-power and float up to heaven... (if you can please do )



[edit on 3-3-2008 by XyZeR]

how the heck can anyone consider evolution a theory when the whole skin pigment and the continent of africa thing is around is beyond me

maybe it's because i wasn't schooled in america

but here are some interesting reads if you still think evolution is a theory

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


when you put that all together you can see that because humans evolve africans have evolved so they can live in a sunny climate

they do not get sun burns

even old people evolve when living in florida

[edit on 3-3-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]

reply to post by melatonin


"It's actually fact and theory. It is a fact that life has changed over millions of years. The theory is the explanation for this observation."

Howie47>No one has observed life changing for millions of years! Life changes
every year. Even every generation. That doesn't mean it is getting more and more complex. Or that it started with a common ancestor.
Observational evidence points to life that started with a large variety, with a built in ability to adapt to different environments.
Random mutations, providing the information in the genome; to build more and more complex designs, is nonsense.
Those that accept such a notion; are in deed very gullible.

Originally posted by melatonin
A serious amount of little mutations over a large period of time?

I understand that, given BILLIONS of years, a garter snake can become a giraffe if you change itsy tiny pieces of it at a time.

But WHY WOULD IT?
Is it possible for the genes of a snake to suddenly DECIDE to grow legs...or, in the case of the intermediate species: nubs? And once they do that randomly, and that one creature gains a benefit from his nubs, who does he mate with to create more "nubbed" creatures so that 200,000 years later we can have a salamander, and 1,000,000 years later we can have a pig, and 1,000,000,000 years later we can have humans.

I understand that I'm simplifying this a lot. But do you see my point?
Sometimes, I guess, I feel that a lot of PURPOSE is injected into the concept of evolution that simply doesn't belong there...if indeed it is a RANDOM process.

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.

I think there is a BIG difference between sandpipers' with longer beaks increasing in population because they are well-fed, and a mutated fish being born with a beak and randomly being more adapted to his environment.

And, remember, we are not talking about a single creature.

Of course we are...in the end.
Genetic mutations don't occur simultaneously in entire populations, do they? (Seriously...please tell me if they do...I'm not being rhetorical.)

One evolves one way, the other another way.

It seems like, the way you're describing it would have to be wrong...it seems like the genetic mutation would have to precurse the separation of the population.

If a population splits, why would their evolution be driven by their geography? That doesn't make sense. Mutation would drive the split, not the other way around, right?


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.

29 examples? That's "lots?"

I think, in the grand scheme of things, it might be more semantically accurate to call that "a few" examples.

But thanks for the article. It is interesting...the parts of it I understand.

Just saw this...funny considering this conversation:

Hexapus Discovered

The unique sea creature, which has two limbs fewer than a normal octopus, is believed to be the result of a birth defect rather than an accident, say his keepers at the Blackpool Sea Life Centre in northwest England.

Let's watch him closely...maybe he can locate another randomly mutated hexapus and take the first step toward breeding a novel species!!

Originally posted by Howie47
Howie47>No one has observed life changing for millions of years! Life changes every year. Even every generation. That doesn't mean it is getting more and more complex. Or that it started with a common ancestor.

If you mean observed as in sat watching this stuff in the real-world, then, of course! We'd have to have quite a bit longer of a lifetime.

However, evidence still exists. We take data from what we see around us and using predictions from evolutionary theory and test. When we do so, we find that predictions are verified.

Just like we take evidence found after a murder to use to convict those who commit them.We didn't actually 'observe' the murder, but we can find evidence to uncover what did actually happen.

Random mutations, providing the information in the genome; to build more and more complex designs, is nonsense. Those that accept such a notion; are in deed very gullible.

I'msure if it was just about random mutations, then you might have a point. But it isn't.

Any evidence that this is the case? Or is this just an argument from 'I say so'?

Various fields use evolutionary algorithms to do exactly what you say can't happen. These processes aren't restricted to biology.

Radio emerges from the electronic soup
16:00 31 August 2002

A self-organising electronic circuit has stunned engineers by turning itself into a radio receiver.

This accidental reinvention of the radio followed an experiment to see if an automated design process, that uses an evolutionary computer program, could be used to "breed" an electronic circuit called an oscillator. An oscillator produces a repetitive electronic signal, usually in the form of a sine wave.

Paul Layzell and Jon Bird at the University of Sussex in Brighton applied the program to a simple arrangement of transistors and found that an oscillating output did indeed evolve.

www.newscientist.com...

Originally posted by OSSkyWatcher
how the heck can anyone consider evolution a theory when the whole skin pigment and the continent of africa thing is around is beyond me

maybe it's because i wasn't schooled in america

but here are some interesting reads if you still think evolution is a theory

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


when you put that all together you can see that because humans evolve africans have evolved so they can live in a sunny climate

they do not get sun burns

even old people evolve when living in florida

[edit on 3-3-2008 by OSSkyWatcher]

People getting a tan has nothing to do with evolution . . . .

Ok . . . this at least the third time i've seen an evolutionist improperly use the word evolution and give it credit for something it hasn't done. Evolution has nothing to do with why there are different species of humans. The different traits among the species of humans are because of environmentally adaptation.

If you take a bunch of moths that are all orange in a localized location. Some are more red or more yellow than others because of variations within the species gene pool. Let's say a new predator is introduced to the area. It is partially color blind and can only see red. All of the moths that are redder will be killed while the moths that are more yellow will live. In a very short amount of time the orange moths will eventually all be yellow. This is not evolution because evolution is not observable. It is called environmental adaptation.

Environmental adaptation and evolution . . . they are totally different things. Do any of the evolutionists actually know what they are talking about???


[edit on 3-3-2008 by JPhish]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by JPhish]

[edit on 3-3-2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Essedarius
I understand that, given BILLIONS of years, a garter snake can become a giraffe if you change itsy tiny pieces of it at a time.

But WHY WOULD IT?
Is it possible for the genes of a snake to suddenly DECIDE to grow legs...or, in the case of the intermediate species: nubs?

No decision required. You didn't decide to have the possible 100 or so mutations you have in your genes.

Iif indeed it is a RANDOM process.

It's not.

I think there is a BIG difference between sandpipers' with longer beaks increasing in population because they are well-fed, and a mutated fish being born with a beak and randomly being more adapted to his environment.

OK, When we are talking about a fish being born with a beak, then it might be relevant.

How about a population of fish developing more leg-like fins over time? Wouldn't that be more likely than a fish giving birth to a beaked fish?

Of course we are...in the end.
Genetic mutations don't occur simultaneously in entire populations, do they? (Seriously...please tell me if they do...I'm not being rhetorical.)

Evolution happens at the level of the population. A population evolves. You might find an individual with an adaptive mutation, but if it dies with him without him passing it on to descendents, no evolution will happen.

It seems like, the way you're describing it would have to be wrong...it seems like the genetic mutation would have to precurse the separation of the population.

If a population splits, why would their evolution be driven by their geography? That doesn't make sense. Mutation would drive the split, not the other way around, right?

Because, for example, the area in which they find themselves might involve different climate, different food, different predators etc etc. Basically, different selection pressures. On top of this is the presence of differing mutations arising in each population, drift etc etc.

This is just one mechanism of speciation (allopatric). And we have observed speciation. That's just the start, of course.

29 examples? That's "lots?"

I think, in the grand scheme of things, it might be more semantically accurate to call that "a few" examples.

29+

It breaks it all down into certain related findings. Thus, we have lots of evidence of pseudogenes. And lots more of endogenous retroviruses.

Originally posted by melatonin
www.newscientist.com...

Oh wow! That's amazing. So can this be an example of selection in action? That the program selected an easier way to produce the required oscillations?

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Oh wow! That's amazing. So can this be an example of selection in action? That the program selected an easier way to produce the required oscillations?

It is quite cool, isn't it. It shows how random variation and selection can produce all sorts of goodies. In this case, the ability to oscillate determined 'fitness'.

The amazing thing is that the process sort of went 180 degrees to improve fitness, stunning really. You could, I suppose, view it as macroevolution. Oscillators were produced, but some pesky transistors developed via the radio route producing an antenna, heh.

These sort of evolutionary algorithms are actually a big thing in various fields.

Originally posted by melatonin
How about a population of fish developing more leg-like fins over time?

If individuals in a population begin to manifest identical mutations at the same time, what is your explanation for the amazing communication that is taking place between the genetic code of these individual fish?

It would be like everyone at my work randomly showing up with a haircut on the same day. Beyond unlikely.

Evolution happens at the level of the population.

I think we are using the term "evolution" differently. I'm talking about "beneficial genetic mutation." Not some kind of social adaptation. The way you are describing it makes no sense to me.

...the area in which they find themselves might involve different climate, different food, different predators etc etc. Basically, different selection pressures.

When you use the term "selection" you've already skipped past the place where an animal within the population has already been RANDOMLY mutated to adapt more efficiently.

29+

Are you serious?

reply to post by AshleyD


Maybe this has been pointed out already. I haven't read the entire thread yet. Please excuse me if it has already been mentioned.

The major difference between evolutionary scientists and creationists is how they arrive at their beliefs:

Creationists accept what was written in the Bible or other religious documents as fact without supportive compelling observable evidence. That is to say, evidence that can be observed by all persons regardless of belief, instead of just by those who believe and choose to support their faith by further making claims that also cannot be independently observed by non-believers and/or other believers. Creationists extrapolate hypotheses out of beliefs and beliefs out of hypotheses based on nothing more than faith that has been presented and held by the respected faithful that have preceded them. There is no independent system comparable to scientific theory within creationism other than the institutionalized political and bureaucratic religious systems that promote belief over observable evidence. Hard evidence that Man was created by God, a deity, or deities has yet to be presented. The belief presupposes that God, a deity, or deities exist; a claim for which evidence or proof has not yet been provided. Never mind the claim whether or not such "Supreme Beings" are responsible for the creation of Man.

Evolutionary scientists rest their beliefs on theories that are supported by observable evidence. Evidence that can be referred to as fact because it can be observed.

What makes science so compelling is not one's predisposition to believe just anything tossed her or his way. Science is compelling because it provides a mechanism that can absorb observable evidence that challenges previously observed evidence, previously drawn conclusions, and long held beliefs. Any accepted theory remains only a theory because scientists recognize that they are limited by what they can readily observe and ably conclude. Such a system makes it difficult for hoaxes and erroneous conclusions to be accepted, and if accepted difficult to remain accepted. Scientists understand that observing one thing, many things, or many, many things is not equal to having observed all probabilities and possibilities. Scientists observe change -- and the language that is used to explain any credible theory reflects this. To a scientist things seem. To a creationist things are or are not. Therefore a scientist's beliefs are hard earned by the scientist. Despite the influence of institutionalized politics and bureaucracy on the course of science, and on the course of the careers of many scientists, a scientist only ever need refer to facts that exist as observable evidence in order to decide which scientific theory believe in, and which direction of research to go. That is the choice that every scientist faces and makes.

I do have personal views on this matter but they would thoroughly take this thread off of the current topic.

reply to post by AshleyD

The response to anyone that believe only in the word of god is simple.
man wrote the bible. not god, but man. so to think that man back in those times did any good just because they felt like it is idiotic. look what religion has done and tell me. does it seem like the bible or any other religious text was written by a god.NO! power,control, wealth. religion is capitalism at its best. free your minds.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

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

Exactly, mainstream evolutionists would likely toss out the idea of a combining the theories but to me both evolution and creationism suffer from the same issue of logic as any hair-brained theory anyone can come up with, unless we change our ideas about the nature of life versus non-life we have a problem... If life is a unique state in comparison with other matter than something is needed to explain its existence however if we see life as a normal state of matter than it doesn't seem like we need a God or any special certain chemical conditions to create it, I think if we learn the Universe is teaming with life it'll be easier to accept life as another state of matter...

Logically, though, if life cannot come from non-life (the law of biogenesis) than we might conclude that none of us are alive in the traditional sense of the word, regardless of whether we are creationists or evolutionists... If there is no cause for the life to exist then it must not exist, and any conclusion drawn, whether some deity or some chemicals, for its existence is not a complete answer and is just as flawed as if I were to say a group of giant rabbits willed all life into existence, now that's a hare-brained theory me and my terrible puns...

Originally posted by Essedarius
If individuals in a population begin to manifest identical mutations at the same time, what is your explanation for the amazing communication that is taking place between the genetic code of these individual fish?

It would be like everyone at my work randomly showing up with a haircut on the same day. Beyond unlikely.

I don't think that's what I'm trying to suggest.

No-one is speaking about all members of a population suddenly acquiring the same mutations at the same time. But the gradual selection of a trait within a population that improves reproductive fitness.

OK. Lets start over.

Essentially, individuals who have genes that are best adapted to a particular environment survive longer and produce more offspring. When they pass their genes on, their descendents with the same genes will tend surivive longer and produce more offspring. After many generations, these genes will dominate a population.

Example

So, this can happen for genes underpinning existing traits/phenotypes, but also novel genes and traits in a population. So, good mutations will aid survival and reproduction, and bad mutations will tend to be reduced pretty quickly.

ABE: another explanation of natural selection.

29+

Are you serious?

Yes. If you check the site, it talks about 30 major predictions of evolutionary theory (i.e., common descent/macro) that have been verified numerous times. Thus, each has been tested in different ways.

30 different major predictions to test one theory? All verified numerous times? That's bloody fanatastic.

Intelligent design hasn't produced one single scientific article testing its ideas. Here we have hundreds of articles testing 30 major predictions of ToE. And you think that's not good enough?

[edit on 3-3-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by keeb333

At any rate, I believe that understanding the timescale involved is the main problem most people have in understanding evolution.

I believe in micro but not macro. With the amount of time you talk about, there should be tons of the in between animals.

But they are not there.

[edit on 3/3/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I believe in micro but not macro. With the time you talk about there should be tons of the in between animals.

But they are not there.

every single fossil you dig up is an "in between animal"
the problem is fossilization...not everything fossilizes. in fact, not even a significant percentage ends up fossilizing and in some areas next to nothing does
but from what we see, we do have "in between animals"

here's a big one, bird-dino
en.wikipedia.org...

every single species alive today is a transitional form, unless it goes extinct the next day