Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer....Video at link, via Metafilter, which links to this response from the Creation Museum. The world becomes fantastically complicated if you do believe in evolution....
Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.
Nye is good on the subject of understanding science and the importance of science, but he dips into the stuff of religion when promotes science for the purpose of exciting us, dispelling mystery, and avoiding feeling crazy. These are the very psychological needs that religion serves quite well for great numbers of human individuals. When Nye proffers science for these purposes, he is promoting it as a religion substitute. Did he even notice he was doing that?!
Posts
311 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 311 of 311"A fact is something which is true whether you believe in it or not."
Not all "facts" are actually facts, however.
Science has been filled with facts that became new facts when new facts fact-checked the facts.
That's why scientism is bad science, it goes beyond the facts to use apparent facts to explain what the facts themselves don't lead towards.
Science like all forms of knowledge can be very syncretistic.
"To claim we have no free will is self-defeating..."
It's entirely possible that the true underlying reality of the universe contains some very unpleasant facts- facts that could change fundamentally how we see ourselves. "I don't like that conclusion, therefore it can't be right" is a response- but maybe not a very good one. Einstein had that reaction to one conclusion, so even scientists have that reaction sometimes. But ultimately the universe is what it is, and our opinion about it won't change it.
Do you understand what "self-defeating" means? It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like the conclusion. It means that you can only accept the conclusion by presupposing the conclusion is false. It defeats itself; if it were true, it would be irrational to believe it. Other examples: "My cognitive faculties are unreliable"; "There is no such thing as an assertion"; "I know that we can't know anything"; etc.
Quaestor wrote:
This comment reveals you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
I disagree but I'd be interested in you explaining why.
Evolutionary theory to me strikes me as very circular. You start with the premise that there is an evolutionary linkage. Then you find two things that are separated by millions of years and because you are positing an evolutionary linkage it proves evolution. Having two fossilized remains of primates even does not mean that there was any fundamental change from the fossil to what it later became. The fossil is a complete animal. Any evolutionary changes are linkages you are attributing when comparing the two fossils.
As Paddy O says:
Your reasons aren't actually proofs or explanations but possible suggestions based on the pre-established assumption.
Quaestor said...
Evidently edutcher is betting science is going to prove the existence of gods, not a bet I'd take..
All I'm betting is that science proves Evolution is a theory, not holy writ.
If they can come up for cogent explanations for the holes in Darwin, I have no problem. I'm just pointing out of fallacy of "science-ists" (allow me to coin a word) asking people, "Do you believe in Evolution?", the way a priest would ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?".
Nobody asks, "Do you believe in Newton's Third Law?", after all.
Rev: See, this is the problem. It is impossible to refute a whispering campaign. If no specific allegations are made, how can there be a defense?
No Rev, the problem is your Faith in scienists. Ironic, considering that even "stupid" Christians understand "Religion is man's interpretation of God, and men are imperfect creatures".
Its as if you believe you ended an argument because the you quoted a site that had "fact check" in the header....
Quaestor said...
Evidently edutcher is betting science is going to prove the existence of gods, not a bet I'd take...
What about this millennia-old scientific prediction?
jimbino said that since a scientist accepts certain claims as facts means that the scientist does not believe those claims.
There's a reason he put "believe" in quotes, Jim. And because I am a gentle soul who pities the ignorant -- but mostly because I'm bored -- I'll be nice enough to explain it to you.
When a person says something like "A scientist does not 'believe' in gravity; he accepts it as a scientific fact", he is signaling that the word "believe" does not mean the same thing as "accept as fact".
And, in fact, it doesn't. Go ahead; look up the word "believe". Notice how all the definitions are about having confidence something is true?
*Accepting* that something is true doesn't meaning believing it is true or being confident it is true; it means treating it as if it is true. That's why members of creationist churches can still work as biologists -- because for purposes of their work, they accept that evolution is occurring, even though they *believe* that all life comes from God.
That's how science works. A certain set of facts is accepted, and form the basis of that theory. Now, if it turns out that someone lied about the facts, well, now you need to revisit that theory and see if it still holds water. But what you BELIEVE never enters into it. It is all about whether or not the theory matches the facts.
In a way, modern physics, cosmology, time-dating technology, modern literacy, and quantum mechanics have been devestating to those that see two old books Bible and Koran, as absolute truth.
Nothing we see in the universe with Hubble, radiotelescopes, etc. indicates the universe is anything but a vast place in which the Earth is utterly insignificant...and is organized solely by physical laws of matter, space, and energy that have existed since the Big Bang. NO evidence of an All-Powerful God shaping any planet, star group, black-hole centered galaxies, or clumping of dark matter. And in that vastness, the idea of All-Powerful God sending his Only Begotten Son Jesus to "save" what would be one small anthill out of trillions to a God...is fairly ludicrous.
Especially given the All Powerful God wanted his only son to be tortured to death by the insignificant ants...without other ants in the trillions of billions of anthill...knowing about it.
But something that would make absolute sense to a primitive tribe of people that believed the whole Universe was only the Earth and the Sun and moon that went around it.
Education has shown ordinary people that the Koran and Bible are just two books with many good things in them,,,like many other books. BUt they are no longer THE only 2 books...save in more backwards people.
And Quantum mechanics is beginning to deliver answers on Creation before, during, and after -- the near infinitely hot and dense Singularity erupted in the Big Bang. Answers that do not factor in any "God did it!" in the theories.
It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer....
Over 200+ comments and, I bet, not one person before me pointed out Mitt Romney fits this description.
Or do you think our Native American "lost tribes of Israel" flew here?
Piggybacking off of what PaddyO said...
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/09/unraveling-human-genome-6-molecular-milestones/
Junk DNA - not so much.
There could be a recessive gene that causes homosexuality but has some positive effect that outweighs the costs, like the sickle cell anemia gene does.
Yes, but homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out.
It could be caused by a rare combination of multiple genes that, individually, have positive effects but which in combination make the carrier homosexual.
Yes, but homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out.
It could have a genetic basis but be triggered by environmental conditions such as overpopulation. Modern humans life in packed-together conditions that, historically, would signal "massive famine and disease is just around the corner".
So over the millions and millions of years that humanity evolved, when was it that we overpopulated the planet? And are you just making this shit up as you go?
Also, another problem is that homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out.
Paddy O: "Your reasons aren't actually proofs or explanations but possible suggestions based on the pre-established assumption."
Yes, that was the point he was making. If you say that homosexuality is a disadvantage because gays don't have kids, you must not realize how complex gene competition is. He was listing possible mechanisms, but we don't know if any of those is actually a factor in this case. Ethics doesn't enter into it.
"Yes, but homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out."
The first part isn't true. And the second part, is also demonstrably not true. But if the first part were true, we don't know that the second part would necessarily follow, because the success or failure of genes is more complex than you suggest.
'Do you understand what "self-defeating" means? It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like the conclusion. It means that you can only accept the conclusion by presupposing the conclusion is false. It defeats itself; if it were true, it would be irrational to believe it.'
That doesn't follow at all. Some scientists believe that consciousness itself is an illusion. They don't go 'poof' when they do so.
Following on what Cedarford said, "In a way, modern physics, cosmology, time-dating technology, modern literacy, and quantum mechanics have been devestating to those that see two old books Bible and Koran, as absolute truth," some bio-sciences are having a similar effect on how we see ourselves, even as far as what's going on inside our own heads. We're much less further along here than in other areas though. It's not guaranteed you'll like what we find.
Something else to remember is that homosexuals aren't sterile. They can have children, they simply have a lower average number of them due to a lack of attraction to the opposite sex.
Now you're arguing homosexuals are actually bisexuals. Which successfully avoids the Darwinian problem of extinction but unfortunately does not prove the "homosexuality is genetic" thesis.
The whole point of the genetic argument was political (not scientific). It was designed to argue that homosexuality was like race. We have an "orientation," and you can be born with a heterosexual one or a homosexual one.
Now you're arguing people have a choice! We're all bisexuals and we decide what we want to do.
I won't even ask how a man without any attraction to a woman is able to have procreative sex with her.
My own position is that we have a biological desire to reproduce. This is natural. We get it from our parents, and our grandparents, all the way up the line. For millions and millions of years, sex was reproduction.
So why do we have homosexuals? And not just homosexuals but celibates, masturbators, and heterosexuals without any children.
Answer: we have free will.
Thus we can and do choose a variety of sexual activities that do not result in reproduction. We can resist nature.
Of course not reproducing leads to extinction for you and your line.
But free will does explain why there are homosexuals, masturbators and celibates, all of whom are resisting nature.
Of course, there may be chemical or other biological reasons for why people aren't reproducing. In fact I know there are. But Darwin would suggest that those people die out. Because they're not reproducing.
In the future, under Darwin's theory, the vast majority of people will be able to reproduce. And will have a biological urge to do so.
But, because of free will, there will still be homosexuals, and celibates, and mastubators.
What's most remarkable about the homosexual gene theory is not how bad the science is. (What science?!) What's remarkable about it is how quickly people abandon Darwin when it doesn't suit their politics.
Revenant: jimbino said scientists shouldn't use the word "believe" because they don't "believe" in things. Instead, they accept things as scientific facts. I pointed out that this was silly on its face: to "believe" something means to accept it. My exact words were "You're using an idiosyncratic definition." You suggest that jimbino put "believe" in quotes because he meant them as scare quotes. Except he obviously didn't: he put it in quotes because he was referencing that particular term. He doesn't get to redefine words at his whim, and then use his unique definitions to criticize those of us who aren't privy to them without getting called on it.
I can't believe you're actually trying to defend his (and your) silliness. You and jimbino are being silly, and I suspect that you, at least, know it (I gave up hope on jimbino). Stop digging.
Yes, but homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out.
There's so much wrong with that sentence.
First of all, you missed the bit about the trait being recessive. In the scenario I used, people carrying 1 copy of a gene would benefit; people carrying 2 would be homosexual. There are twice as many of the former as the latter, and each has a 50% chance of passing on the gene to a child. So you end up with *heterosexuals* routinely passing on the "gay gene" to kids. If the benefit of 1 copy of a gene outweighs the penalty of having two copies, the gene will continue to propagate.
Secondly -- if you think homosexuals can't reproduce, I have to wonder where you think Jim McGreevey's kids came from. I guess his wife's a slut. Joking aside, homosexuals are less likely to reproduce. It is not impossible for them to reproduce. It is just impossible for them to reproduce with members of the same sex.
Yes, but homosexuals don't reproduce, so they die out.
Repetition does not make silly claims more intelligent. :)
So over the millions and millions of years that humanity evolved, when was it that we overpopulated the planet?
Dumb question. The relevant question is "how many times have groups of humans overpopulated the environment they lived in", and the answer is "more times than can readily be counted, and those are just the ones we know about".
If you're a hunter-gatherer living in Africa -- a description that fits at least 9500 of the last 10,000 generations in your ancestry -- it doesn't do you a lick of good that Europe, Asia, and the Americans are chock-full of wonderful hunting and gathering opportunities. What matters is what you, your spouse, and your children can reach, on foot, before dying of starvation and/or thirst. And then probably take by force from the other humans already living there.
Packing people together only became possible once reliable agriculture was developed, and packing them together the way modern cities do only became safe with modern sanitation. The former is, comparatively speaking, as recent to human history as the Clinton administration is to American history. The latter is about as recent as the 2012 Republican convention. :)
Do you understand what "self-defeating" means? It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like the conclusion. It means that you can only accept the conclusion by presupposing the conclusion is false
The term you're grasping for is "self-refuting", not "self-defeating".
If "self-defeating" meant what you think it does, the statement "to claim we have no free will is self-defeating" would simply be wrong. It doesn't take free will to say you have no free will; if it did, it would be impossible for me to make your monitor display the words "I have no free will".
And yet... I can. :)
Incredibly intelligent people who devote their lives to understanding evolution will only find more questions. Incredibly intelligent people who devote their lives to understanding religion will only find more questions.
Any way you look at it, this shit's fantastically complicated.
jr565 wrote:
and because you are positing an evolutionary linkage it proves evolution
There's your fundamental misunderstanding right there, science doesn't attempt to prove anything in the sense of X is certainly true. This kind of proof is within the realm of religion only where evidence takes a back seat to authority. Even mathematics does not make claims of this kind since the foundations rest on axioms rather than provable truths.
Science doesn't "start with the premise that there is an evolutionary linkage", it starts with data -- such as comparative anatomy, fossils, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and molecular biology -- and then infers the linkage from evidence.
While evolution undercuts religious fundamentalism - keep in mind that it is just one of many expanding fields of knowledge that hurt more than help religious devotion to All-Powerful Allah and Sweet Baby Jesus.
Physics, Hubble, cosmology, quantum mechanics, understanding deeper into biology and behavior, (more than evolution)...are significantly lowering the odds of an afterlife. The belief that Allah will help one whit in making the plane hit the building or IED go off with maximum casualties of enemy the jihadi seeks to smite.
Or that Someone Above Who Cares About Trillions of scattered little Anthills across galaxies - is actually on the Blessed Baby Bella Santorum "case".
As Steven Hawking said...what happens when we die is like what happens to a well designed computer that eventually breaks for good.
It's over, there is finality.
I hope he is wrong, but from the standpoint of a scientist, it makes sense.
edutcher wrote:
All I'm betting is that science proves Evolution is a theory, not holy writ.
Science needn't waste its time proving evolution to be a theory, because it is a theory. The problem is you evidently don't understand what science means by the term theory.
All I'm betting is that science proves Evolution is a theory, not holy writ.
And they will follow it up by proving that "We're Not Gonna Take It" is a glam-metal song and not an African cape buffalo.
So you end up with *heterosexuals* routinely passing on the "gay gene" to kids.
who die out.
That doesn't follow at all. Some scientists believe that consciousness itself is an illusion. They don't go 'poof' when they do so.
Of course not. They just cease being rational. If a position is self-defeating -- if it can only be defined or defended by presupposing its own falsity -- then it is irrational to believe it, since the position takes away any reason we could have for believing it. Basically, the syllogism would be something like: If X then Y; if Y then Z; if Z then not X; therefore, if X then not X.
The position you're describing is called eliminative materialism. It has been demonstrated to be self-defeating many times, which is one reason why it is such a rare position. Roughly, it goes like this:
1. If there is no consciousness, then there are no propositional attitudes.
2. If there are no propositional attitudes, then no thesis is asserted.
3. There is no consciousness (1) and there are no propositional attitudes (2). This is the eliminative materialist thesis.
4. Therefore, no thesis is asserted.
5. Therefore, eliminative materialism (3) isn't asserted.
6. Therefore, eliminative materialism does not make any claims.
I can provide you with a list of references of arguments, counter-arguments, counter-counter-arguments, etc. You'll have to email me though because it's nearly midnight here (Belgium) and I have get some sleep. Goodnight ever'body!
It is not impossible for them to reproduce. It is just impossible for them to reproduce with members of the same sex.
AHHHHHHHHH. You're making me insane.
It's impossible for homosexuals to reproduce.
It's possible for just about anybody to reproduce.
But to reproduce, you have to do so through heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality is not homosexuality.
who die out.
No -- who thrive better than kids who lack any copies of the gene. Do try to remember that we're discussing a "sickle-cell"-type scenario, here. Zero copies = average, one copy = better than average, two copies = bad.
Even if your "homosexuals never ever EVER have kids because even their sperm hates women or something" theory was correct, a scenario like the above would simply lead to a couple of recessive carriers having, for every four kids, one "normal" one, two "superior" ones, and one gay kid who never reproduces but still contributes to the survival of the others.
Nothing dead-endy about that, evolutionarily speaking. :)
Look, the attempt to define homosexuality as biological is a political attempt to normalize homosexuality. That may be right and good, but you have to accept really bad science--or actually, no science at all--to believe it as fact.
The reason heterosexuality is considered "the norm" is because that is how we have children.
And breeders inherit the earth.
So if you despise breeding, and some people do, okay. But don't be surprised if you die out!
Reproduction is, from Darwin's perspective, incredibly important. Thus, again from Darwin's perspective, heterosexuality is important and homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
And if these arguments are annoying or upsetting to people, I dunno, maybe we should be careful when we teach Darwin in school. You know?
Or is it just a matter of whose ox is being gored?
I get the feeling that some people love Darwin when they can attack Christianity with it. But when they try to reconcile Darwin with homosexuality--or non-breeding in general--Darwin goes out the window.
But to reproduce, you have to do so through heterosexuality.
When we label a person "heterosexual" or "homosexual", we are describing who they are sexually attracted to, not who they have sex with. This is why we say that 97% of people are heterosexual even though 30% of the population are virgins.
I guess you could rant on about how sodomy is non-reproductive, but so are kissing and holding hands. Oddly enough, there are all sorts of non-reproductive activities that two people who are attracted to each other can engage in. That doesn't preclude reproduction through other means.
Revenant wrote:
... a couple of recessive carriers having, for every four kids, one "normal" one, two "superior" ones, and one gay kid who never reproduces but still contributes to the survival of the others.
Your basic Punnett square at work, all well and good as far as it goes, but then you're faced with explaining the survival benefit of keeping alive the memory of Judy Garland.
'The reason heterosexuality is considered "the norm" is because that is how we have children.'
No it isn't. It's the norm because it's the most frequent state.
"Look, the attempt to define homosexuality as biological is a political attempt to normalize homosexuality. That may be right and good, but you have to accept really bad science--or actually, no science at all--to believe it as fact."
This partly correct- finally. There was and is a political movement to make homosexuality biological. (Previously, oddly, there was an opposite movement.) Politics can corrupt science.
That means we have to look at the science extra carefully. But it doesn't automatically mean that the conclusion is wrong.
The best science on the subject now seems to indicate that there's a genetic component to homosexuality- 50% in identical twin cases, e.g. But it's not the final answer. It's complex, and we have don't even have all the questions yet, much less all the answers.
Extremes on both sides want this to be simple, apparently.
Quastor wrote:
Science doesn't "start with the premise that there is an evolutionary linkage", it starts with data -- such as comparative anatomy, fossils, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and molecular biology -- and then infers the linkage from evidence.
The data itself being used provides nothing about evolution except for the infernce made by the scientist posing the linkage. THe fossil record shows no intermediate forms EVER. All it shows are complete animals. That there might be similarities between one fossil and the next does not prove or even infer any evolutionary change, only what the evolutionary scientist puts in.It's a circular inference that proves itself because it's circular.
It's storytelling in the place of science.
1. If there is no consciousness, then there are no propositional attitudes. [etc, etc]
There are two fairly obvious flaws in your argument.
The first flaw is that your first assertion, quoted above, is not demonstrably true. Eliminative materialism offers explanations for how such things can exist without consciousness. Thus, your attempt at a logical argument boils down to:
1. Eliminative materialism is wrong.
2. QED
The second flaw is that "consciousness" is not the same as "free will" -- so even if you could prove consciousness must exist, it does not follow that free will does.
But aside from its being wrong both in the specifics and in its general thrust, it wasn't a bad argument. :)
Look, the attempt to define homosexuality as biological is a political attempt to normalize homosexuality.
And right on cue, here come the paranoid conspiracy theories.
I mean, never mind that researchers into the biological roots of homosexuality spent years being attacked BY homosexuals for doing so. No, they must have been engaged in a secret long-term strategy to "normalize homosexuality" over the objections of actual homosexuals.
Also, researchers into the genetic causes of cancer are just trying to normalize cancer. Everyone knows cancer is caused by people out of alignment with God's will. :)
Evolution is a natural outgrowth of creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like someone said earlier, but I'll put it into engineering parlance. The creator was an engineer, it's our job and passion to reverse engineering what he did and why. That's the great mystery, science and engineering are the vehicle for those discoveries.
As but one example, the Coelacanth was last found in the fossilized record 65 million years ago. It was intially posited that it was the first "walking fish", the missing link between fish and tetrapods.
Until they found one in 1938. And it was unchanged from its fossilized cousin of 65 miillions years ago. Still couldn't walk. And largely unchanged. Where is the evolution within the coalecanth. It doesn't even prove evolution on a micro level, but most assuredly doesn't on a macro level.
"THe fossil record shows no intermediate forms EVER. All it shows are complete animals."
There are intermediate forms all over the place. You're just making that up.
One of the predictive aspects of evolutionary science, is when scientists hypothesize that two previously known animals are thought to be related- one might be the ancestor (or a close relative of the ancestor) of the other. They hypothesize an intermediate form, and where and in what layer it might be found. Sometimes this hypothetical animal is found, sometimes right where they thought it would be.
Of course each intermediate form is its own complete animal. The intermediate form doesn't "think of itself as an intermediate form" so to speak. Evolution doesn't plan ahead.
Religion really does a great job dispelling mystery. Religion is superstition - hello, it's 2012, not 1012. Wake up.
This is incorrect. As Ernst Mayr put it, virtually every advance in physiology has come from asking what a given organ or structure is supposed to do.
Lol. Especially the appendix.
Anyway, you misunderstand the point. The question was about using evolution as a normative directive, such as to order morality and how that could be done if it is true. Well, let me be the first to tell you that just because humans haven't evolved gills, blubber and fins, there is nothing morally wrong with one or a group of them choosing to live in the ocean if they so desire.
Where is the evolution within the coalecanth.
So what if the coalecanth has not significantly changed in 65 million years. Lots of organisms including insects, plants, corals, and many other fish have not significantly evolved over millions of years.
You have a really crappy understanding of evolution if you don't understand why your argument is irrelevant.
THe fossil record shows no intermediate forms EVER. All it shows are complete animals.
1. Creationist says "there are no intermediate fossils! Just complete animals!"
2. Scientist discovers previously unknown fossil between two previous fossils, having traits of both and living between the times of the two prior fossils.
3. Creationist says "that's not intermediate! That's an entirely different animal!"
4. Goto 1.
Repeat ad nauseum (I think we're somewhere in the low 100,000s on iterations of this particular loop).
Saint Croix said:
I get the feeling that some people love Darwin when they can attack Christianity with it. But when they try to reconcile Darwin with homosexuality--or non-breeding in general--Darwin goes out the window.
I get that feeling too. To accept Darwin is to be cruelly neutral (TM)- adapt or die out, period.
Nye implies that the "truth" gives society the right to usurp parental responsibility and authority.
We can all argue all day about what is true and what isn't true, but we ought to all stomp the illiberal, anti-liberty, fundamental assumption that we can't allow other people to be *wrong* into a bloody smear.
or take another of the so called transitional forms, the Archaeopteryx. It was considered part bird part dinosaur because it had feathers, but now it's simply considered a dinosaur with feathers that could fly. No evidence that it was a pregenitor of modern birds.
All these similarities were found with birds and dinosaurs, which suggested that therefore it was a transitional form. But you can find these types of similarities with many animals, and there doesn't need to be any evolutionary linkage to explain them.
Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs."Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009.
Well in fact they don't KNOW that there is any transition between birds and dinosaurs AT ALL. The only thing they can really say about archaepetryx is what they can glean from examining the fossils. Proving linkages between transitional forms is merely the evolutionist creating a story. The aracepetryx is the link between birds and dinosaurs. Until it's not. THen the transition had to come later (even though we don't know what taht transition was) Why though? SInce it's been proven that the archaepetryx was not a transitionary form, but just a flying dinosaur with feathers, but still bears a superficial resemblence to birds, maybe that simply means that scientists are looking at similarities and making assumptions that feed into their preconceived beliefs.Maybe there are animals that might have similarities to birds and to dinosaurs that existed at one time. But there is no evidence, certianly none from examining the fossil remains of the aracepetryx of a transition from a dinosaur to a bird.
And suppose they found the fossil of an aracepetryx, and then the fossil of another animal that superfically looks like both a bird and a dinosaur separated by millions of years. Where is there any evidence of any linkage at all on an evolutionary ladder that the two are related in any way more than that they bear some resemblence.
The only evidence is the linkage made by the comparison of the two fossils by those making the comparison. If you assume evolution is true, why then Archaeopteryx is the transition from dinosaur to bird. Or, not. Maybe, there is no tranistion from dinosaur to bird at all.
Is biblical creation really that incompatible with evolutionary theory?
Well, except for creating Light on the First Day and Stars on the Fourth Day, no...
Until they found one in 1938. And it was unchanged from its fossilized cousin of 65 miillions years ago.
I'm going to have to guess why you think this is damning evidence of something, because from a scientific perspective the only appropriate response is "um, yes... and?".
I'm going to guess you think that being a "missing link" precludes the species having survived. I'm not sure why you would think that, since in most species the act of giving birth to a mutant does not strike every existing member of the parent's species dead. It is normal for a species to spawn an offshoot species, then continue to live on for many generations afterwards.
I'm also going to guess that you think "the coelcanth was unchanged" is some sort of damning indictment of evolution as well. But again, all that means is that the line of coelcanths survived. That's not unusual; around 5% of species have, so far.
Science like all forms of knowledge can be very syncretistic.
Good thing then that such a syncretistic form of knowledge as science can be tested and retested and refuted or validated in real-time, as long as someone has the resources required of the experiment and the mind to think it up.
This is a distinct advantage when compared to other forms of "knowledge" that require the say-so of an appointed authority and his community of affiliated believers, or a new and competing, similarly structured social movement, in order to do so.
Revenant wrote:
2. Scientist discovers previously unknown fossil between two previous fossils, having traits of both and living between the times of the two prior fossils.
And what does that prove? Animals have traits in comparison, but that doesn't mean that they are somehow related. And even if they are related, it doens't mean that one evolved from the other.
YOu're simply taking two fossils separated by millions of years and assuming that because they share some superficial relation, that therefore they are cojoined somehow through evolution.
If you dig the fossils of a chimpanzee and a human you'll find some similarity. But there really is no linkage other than what you're assiging to the two fossils. Chimpanzees could have existed exactly as they have (with minor variations inherent in all animals)and humans could have existed exactly as they have. No evolution. And you will find similarities and differences. IF you then find a third fossil remains of a bipedal animal unknown to us in history from a million years prior it doesn't prove that any evoltuion at all. It could simply be an animal that looks different simply because it IS different. But because bipedal animals share many characteristics with one another bears some resemblence to both humans and chimps and other bipeds.
What is not proved though is that humans somehow evolved an upright stance because the earlier fossil didn't have one and it existed before humans.
Rev,
As Darwin argued:
"If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants."
Saint Croix:
Is there a reason you are assuming that the matrimonial and reproductive norms of today were the same norms practiced over the last two thousand years of civilization? Last I checked, most of the world practiced arranged marriages for a long stretch of history, before allowing romantic love as the basis for it and finally, romantic love without a heterosexual arrangement.
Gay pride and acceptance is a relatively recent phenomenon. To stridently and repeatedly assert that gays didn't unwillingly agree to unhappy marriages inclusive of reproduction until very recently is ignorance of gargantuan proportions. They did. And one presumes, in many more traditional societies, still do.
And yet, their genes survived...
or take another of the so called transitional forms, the Archaeopteryx. It was considered part bird part dinosaur because it had feathers
"It was considered part bird part dinosaur"? That's like describing your mother as "part grandmother, part you".
You're thinking like a creationist, not a scientist. "Dinosaur" and "bird" are two distinct categories with some horrible transitional chimera lying between them. They're arbitrary categories invented by humans. Saying "they thought it was a bird but now they think it was a dinosaur" is like saying "people used to call Led Zeppelin "hard rock" but now they call it "classic rock". :)
On a related note, are you ever going to get around to describing a mistake made by evolutionary scientists during our lifetimes? You've got Archaeopteryx from the 19th century and coelacanth from the 1930s. How about something from the 21st century? Heck, I'll settle for the 1980s.
Rev wrote:
I'm going to guess you think that being a "missing link" precludes the species having survived. I'm not sure why you would think that, since in most species the act of giving birth to a mutant does not strike every existing member of the parent's species dead. It is normal for a species to spawn an offshoot species, then continue to live on for many generations afterwards.
But you're assuming that there is evolutoin occuring and positing that evolution occured because creatures like the Coelacanth existed in the prehistoric era and looked like they had feet of some kind. Therefore it shows some form of evolution.
The Coelacanth could simply have existed as it has from prehistoric times till now, and simply looked like it had feet because that's what a Coelacanth looks like. How are you getting PROOF of transitions between species?
Take the evolution of the horse. All evolutionary practicioners did was take animals that are both extinct and non extinct and placed them on a chart. There is no evidence that one became the other only that there are different species in the world that existed in a certian time period that have a resemblance.
For example, 60 million years ago the original horse was supposed to be Eophippus, and then they lay out how evolution occured from Eophippus to the modern horse. There is a lot of storytelling going on htere. Foremost, there is no actual evidence of any evolution at all. The only evidence is that they put the animals on a chart and said this one came before that one therfore - evolution.
If we found a living Eohippus today that was unchanged what would that mean? Absolutely nothing. Only that there is an animal called an Eohippus that looks a bit like horse and was also in existence 60 million years ago.
Revenant wrote:
You're thinking like a creationist, not a scientist. "Dinosaur" and "bird" are two distinct categories with some horrible transitional chimera lying between them.
So then how is there a transition from dinosaur to birds? Why I find it a bit far fetched is because its evolution that is suggesting that somehow there was this change. And basing it on the fossilized remains of an animal that bears some resemblence to both a bird and a dinosaur, suggesting as PROOF that this shows one evolved into the other. If they are two separate categories and you recognize that, why would there need to be any evolution at all for that to occur?
One nice part about this discussion os that it has "outed" some long-time posters as creationists. People who are rational on other matters.
BTW, the whole discussion about "intermediate fossils" has sort of been moved to a backwater by the power of microbiology, DNA, DNA timedrift, ability of computers to sort vast piles to data for the DNA markers in tens of thousands of fruit flies or tens of thousands of people.
We now know basically when evolution caused divergence in families, genuses, species we have great interest in. With hominids and other more recent lifeforms, we sometimes even have point of origin and timespan of their spread throughout their habitat.
As Darwin argued:
See, the difference between science and religion is that scientists don't have to pretend people who lived hundreds of years ago knew more than we do today. :)
But you're assuming that there is evolutoin occuring and positing that evolution occured because creatures like the Coelacanth existed in the prehistoric era and looked like they had feet of some kind. Therefore it shows some form of evolution.
No portion of that incoherent statement resembled anything I, or any scientist I've ever read, has ever said.
Archaepetry literally means "first bird" and was at the time proof of evolution. Only, as was later shown it was never a bird, just a dinosaur with wings and feathers. You will find many animals that bear a resemblence to other animals. IT doens't mean that there is any relationship between those animals in any evolutionary sense. Just as the archaepetryx didn't really have any evolutionary history with birds etiher, but just looked like it did because people found a few similarities and then made up stories suggesting links that were never there to begin with.
Today's abortion/evoltion van in the supermarket parking lot (messages take 4 pics)
pic 1
pic 2
pic 3
pic 4
Methadras said...
Evolution is a natural outgrowth of creation. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like someone said earlier, but I'll put it into engineering parlance. The creator was an engineer, it's our job and passion to reverse engineering what he did and why. That's the great mystery, science and engineering are the vehicle for those discoveries.
Not an insubstantial number of scientists and philosophers are now willing to say that natural law, science and quantum mechanics theorists can now explain the universe from the quantum singularity coming into existence, the Big Bang, and all that has happened since then without bringing up any "Creative Entity, ", any "Unobtainium", any manifestation of Higher Intelligence at work.
An All Powerful God is not necessarily precluded from involvement from the 1st singuarity that became the Universe to the evolution of that Universe to present day(at least this one possible Universe among many possible) But it seems so far based on what we know, that an All Powerful God existing is not necessary to expain anything within that Universe.
Rev,
No portion of that incoherent statement resembled anything I, or any scientist I've ever read, has ever said.
Ok, so lets have you explain why the Coelacanth was described by those who believe in evolution as the link between fish and tetrapods?
But seriously, what I want to know is how the Creationists are sure that DNA even exists...
Last I checked, most of the world practiced arranged marriages for a long stretch of history.
Gay pride and acceptance is a relatively recent phenomenon. To stridently and repeatedly assert that gays didn't unwillingly agree to unhappy marriages inclusive of reproduction until very recently is ignorance of gargantuan proportions. They did. And one presumes, in many more traditional societies, still do.
Ritmo, if you think homosexuality is a gene that is passed down to children, and you like homosexuals and are glad they are here, then you should be really, really happy that they were forced to marry and pass down their genes to their kids.
Because that's how genes are passed to children.
I just assume as a matter of course that every gay person has straight parents. Because, you know, they were born.
They have straight parents, straight grandparents, straight great-grandparents. Don't they? Of course people are private about sexuality, but I'm not hearing any anecdotal evidence about gay families going back generations. Are you?
"Ritmo, if you think homosexuality is a gene that is passed down to children...."
There does seem to be a genetic component to homosexuality. The science suggests there's no single "gay gene," as there is for blue eyes, for example.
All of your arguments insist that if genes play a role, it must be on the very simple level of one gene, one trait. Some things work that way, but not most.
Ok, so lets have you explain why the Coelacanth was described by those who believe in evolution as the link between fish and tetrapods?
"Was described" by "those who believe"? Are you claiming this is happening today, or that it happened in the past?
Also, are you aware that the term "missing link" isn't actually a scientific concept?
I just assume as a matter of course that every gay person has straight parents. Because, you know, they were born.
Then you're not that bright. There are countless examples of homosexuals with kids.
I find it highly amusing that so many social conservatives -- who are normally so fond of beating the "sex is about CHILDREN, not about PLEASURE" cliche to death in this forum -- are so quick to turn around and insist that a person who doesn't enjoy heterosexual sex cannot have children, ever, for any reason, period. Honestly, Croix, do try to remember that "I sure do like fuckin'" is not the main reason for having kids. :)
Ann,
As a Dr. of Dirt (Soil Scientist) I must say you knocked this one out of the ballpark with your statement -
"The failure even to see this problem, by you and by Nye, shows that you are believing in science, not being scientific."
There is a distinct difference between believing in science and being scientific.
There are countless examples of homosexuals with kids.
Bisexuals with kids. Or homosexuals who found a surrogate.
What you don't have, Rev, are gay kids with gay parents and gay grandparents all up the line. There is no social science in that regard.
And it's really, really annoying how you conflate homosexuality with bisexuality. Do you seriously not know the difference?
Bisexuality could theoretically be biological. For instance you might have chemistry that makes you more likely to experiment. Serotonin levels, maybe.
But a homosexual orientation is not like that at all. It's a rigid political construct. They're not saying they like to experiment more than other people. They're saying they are biologically gay. It's fixed. Determined at birth. They have no interest in the opposite sex. And they say it's impossible for them to sleep with the opposite sex.
Have you not noticed how rigid, if not fascist, people on the left can be about sexuality? For instance they say it's impossible for somebody who is gay to become straight.
Under your theory it's entirely possible. They're bi, right? That's your argument for all homosexuals, apparently.
My argument is that sex is very dark and mysterious. We don't understand it. We don't understand how one sibling is gay and the others are straight. Same environment. So it must be genetic. But we see no history of homosexuality in the family, which is what we should see when we blame biology, right? We have no genetic marker for it.
There's no science here at all. The "science" is a joke. Just theory, theory, theory. And most of it is designed for politics.
I think it's highly likely the only sexuality that is genetic is a desire to breed. And free will explains the rest.
Revenant wrote:
"Was described" by "those who believe"? Are you claiming this is happening today, or that it happened in the past?
Also, are you aware that the term "missing link" isn't actually a scientific concept?
are you suggesting that evolutionists no longer believe in trannsitional life forms!? It could be the Coelacanth or the next life form posited as the anscestor of that which comes later. But the problem is, at least based on the fossilized record, there is no real "proof" of said linkage other than that which the evolutionist puts into the equation.
When that next transitional life form is put forward which supposedly shows that it's the missing link, what is the proof of that linkage other than that the evolutionist says so?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that creationism is right either. I just happen to think a lot of evolution is more conjecture than actual science (and I'm distinguishing macro evolution from micro). We shouldn't teach creationism over evolution in science class, but I'm skeptical of some of the conclipusions drawn because they seem like wild conjecture to say the least.
Andy R. said...
Why do you think science shouldn't excite us or dispel mystery? Seems like a perfectly legitimate thing for science to do.
I'll bet Andy R is a big fan of the auto-da-fé.
Well he he hates autos and he is fey, so there is that.
Going to DC next week with family. I told my wife "it's so expensive to eat there." She said: We'll just eat "Chick-fil-A."
Bisexuals with kids. Or homosexuals who found a surrogate.
No, homosexuals with kids. You just don't know what the words "homosexual", "heterosexual", and "bisexual" mean. :)
O Ritmo Segundo said...
But seriously, what I want to know is how the Creationists are sure that DNA even exists...
Prolly the same way the rest of us do: X-ray diffraction, PCR, Sequencing, P-31 NMR, etc., etc.
Your point?
Rev, enlighten me. Distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals. And how do homosexuals reproduce without a surrogate?
Do they even have Chick-fil-A's in the District or did Obama outlaw them?
As pointed out in a previous thread, the chicken is a highly evolved creature, descended from the dinosaur. The chicken has evolved its tastiness to such a high degree as to be prized by all creeds and colors save one that needs saving.
Any guesses who they might be?
are you suggesting that evolutionists no longer believe in trannsitional life forms!?
I'm saying you don't understand the concept of transitional life forms. For example, you keep using "the" when discussing them, as if a single organism lay between, say, dinosaurs and birds, or fish and land dwellers.
This is why you keep making remarks like "it isn't a transitional fossil, it is a dinosaur with feathers" without realizing that "a dinosaur with feathers" is an excellent description OF a transitional fossil.
The problem is that you have this vision in mind of, I don't know, a chicken with the head of a T-rex or something. In reality millions of generations passed between dinosaurs and modern birds. We would expect there to be numerous transitional fossils -- and, oddly enough, that's exactly what has been found.
When that next transitional life form is put forward which supposedly shows that it's the missing link, what is the proof of that linkage other than that the evolutionist says so?
"When that next..."? You should read a book written after 1938, jr. :)
Rev, enlighten me. Distinguish between homosexuals and bisexuals. And how do homosexuals reproduce without a surrogate?
Homosexuals are only sexually attracted to their own gender, bisexuals to both. Homosexuals can reproduce by having sex with a member of the opposite gender (although obviously not one they are sexually attracted to; see sentence 1).
Now, I'm sure you'll bleat some response about how any man who ever touches pussy can't be gay, but I'm used to you being spectacularly wrong about the simplest of things so I promise not to complain about it too much. :)
Any guesses who they might be?
I'm just trying to guess if you think "gay" is a "creed"... or a "color".
I'm going to go with "color", because of the whole rainbow thing.
Well, Rev, orientation is a failed moniker because it implies something eastern when in fact it's just as much an occidental (accidental?) thing.
But the fecundity of gays is at most an evolutionary sideshow.
Homosexuals are only sexually attracted to their own gender, bisexuals to both.
And do you have any social science--or even anecdotal evidence--of gay people with gay parents, gay grandparents, etc.?
Here's an article in the Independent.
Pretty typical in that its assumed to be scientific and yet there's no science there.
"In primitive societies where dominant males defended harems, homosexual males might have obtained privileged access to women because the dominant males - wrongly - saw them as no threat. Hence the genes 'for' homosexuality were passed on.'"
I think I saw that movie! Bob and Bing, Road To Morocco.
Revenant wrote:
This is why you keep making remarks like "it isn't a transitional fossil, it is a dinosaur with feathers" without realizing that "a dinosaur with feathers" is an excellent description OF a transitional fossil.
not at all. Or, only because you say so. Dinosaurs can have feathers without any evolutionary action involved simply because some dinosaurs have feathers. Just as birds can have feathers because that's what birds have. Humans don't have feathers and will never have feathers simply because it's not in our DNA. It's in fact been posited that a lot of dinosaurs were feathered despite pictures we have in our minds of dinosaurs looking like T Rex's of our imagination.
jr565 wrote:
Archaepetry literally means "first bird" and was at the time proof of evolution.
By "Archaepetry" I suppose you mean Archaeopteryx, a name coined from the Greek meaning ancient wing, not as you claim "first bird". Your understanding of this subject is so poor... not even wrong, as they say.
Is there a formal name for the logical fallacy based on the assumption of a claim's self-evidence?
One of the big errors in the debate is the vast overestimation of the degree to which the general public can grasp evolution. People can understand cell muation, because it involves simple chemical reaction, something everyone has witnessed. Mix Chemicals A and B, they react and become Chemicals C and D. A cell contacts a foreign substance, the two react,the cell's composition is changed.
A process by which a cell undergoes a slight chemical change in a single iteration is not the same thing as a process by which a multicellular organism, through some catalyst other than contact with a foreign substance, generates and/or eliminates entire new cells in a single iteration.
Most people can understand multicellular speciation only as much as they can undertsand the Star Trek transporter - they know what the end result is supposed to be, but they can't wrap their heads around the "how." The mechanism is something they can't relate to. So to a lot of folks evolution looks more like wild speculation than real science.
They don't know how gravity works either (does anybody?) but they can observe it in real time.
Let's first list what form of evolution we are even talking about. Certainly not Darwinism. Darwin was right in many of his obsevariationsof nature, I.e survival of the fittest, that there are certain variations in offspring, that there are more offspring produced than can survive, in the fight for survival, the best variants live and the worst variants die. He correctly concluded that this gradually causes small, but noticeable, changes in species.
But he then expanded that to suggest that those small changes would continue without limit to the point where entire new species would form? He also promised that the fossil record would show these gradual changes. It doesn't. What it does show are animals we are familiar with that are all fully formed, with no evolution being shown, and in cases where we have fossils of prehistoric animals that still live, the fossils are identical to their modern counterpart.
One problem is that Darwin believed in pangenesis which suggests that acquired traits Can be inherited by their offspring. But that was not true.
Then came neo Darwinism which says that randommess of ariations are determined by natural selection producing a gradual movement to more evolved species (and natural selection could only occur through Inherited characteristics).
That's one of the problems rigtherer. the amount of genetic variation in normal offspring is limited. You can breed a thoroughbred horses for speed, but there is a limit to how fast they can run.
Also, the fossil record does not support neo Darwinism at all. There aren't transitional fossils for T Rex's. There are just T Rex's.
Then theirs the Hopeful Monsters theory which came about because The Synthetic Theory, however, has some major recognized problems. The first problem is that the amount of genetic variation in normal offspring is limited. You can breed thoroughbred horses for speed, but they can only run so fast. They certainly can't be breeded to fly.
Then there's the hopeful monster theory from the 40's. It was recognized (by those postulatioing the theory that genetic research had proved that species cannot gradually evolve into other species, and that the fossil record showed that they had not. So therefore, To explain evolution it postulated a HUGE change from one generation to the next, for example a lizard giving birth to a bird. But this is really far fetched and most don't buy it.
(though some still do in certain cases).
And then, finally there's punctured equilibrium. It agreeds that genetics shows that species don't gradually evolve into other species, and the fossil record doesn't show that at all. . But they didn't want to believe the hopeful Monster theory, so instead came up with puncture equilibrium (actually a restating of an earlier theory""speciation could occur fairly rapidly in small, isolated populations. Cut off from the larger gene pool by geographic barriers, a small amount of variation would be amplified by selection."
There is no evidence that this has occured though. And in fact punctured equilibrium was postulated because of the fossil record does not show any transitional forms. They are honest about the fossil record.
So Rev, which version should we be believing in?
9/9/12 11:24 PM
Dinosaurs can have feathers without any evolutionary action involved simply because some dinosaurs have feathers. Just as birds can have feathers because that's what birds have.
Hang in there, you've almost managed to understand the concept of transitional life forms. :)
It's in fact been posited that a lot of dinosaurs were feathered despite pictures we have in our minds of dinosaurs looking like T Rex's of our imagination.
Yes, jr, I know that (of course). Did you know that the dinosaur ancestry of birds was posited -- based on bone and skeletal structure, among other things -- before the first feathered dinosaur was ever found?
See, what makes all this amusing is that it isn't actually known that birds and dinosaurs are two distinct groups at all. The more we learn about dinosaurs, the more we think "hey, they didn't go completely extinct at all. They survived -- as birds." And here you are, obsessed with finding a bird/dinosaur intermediate.
Tell me, what's the distinctly "dinosaur" trait that makes you say "that can't be a bird, that's a dinosaur"? I'm betting you can't actually think of one, given that you appear to have gotten one hundred percent of your knowledge in this field from out-of-date propaganda materials. :)
Yes I misspelled archaeopepetryx (though I think I spelled it correctly later in the same paragraph). But Regardless of the misspelling I'm not wrong about the name. It is sometimes referred to as Urvogel (German derivative) meaning "fist bird"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Now is it a bird?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Or is it a dinosaur?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html
In either case the idea that it's an evolutionary link between birds and Dino's is merely, talking out of one's ass.
We have trouble enough even determining how to classify it as an animal or species, the idea that we can prove evolution from it is based on the worst form of pseudoscience.
Prior to its reassessment the idea was that it was transitional because it had feathers and three fingered hands and a wishbone. But, they've since found many more Dinos and animals with feathers and three fingered hands and even a t Rex has a wishbone.
In other words, those things which supposedly show evolution, are common traits found in many animals unrelated to one another. Evoloutiionists simply are identifying similarities and then classifying these animals based on these traits which may merely be similar because there is much similarity in nature and not because one evolved from another. If one animal has a wishbone and another animal has a wishbone, does that somehow imply some linkage between the two animals by default? Other than evolution putting two species on the tree of life, (because of things like having wishbones) together, what other evidence is there that makes it so?
It's certainly not found in the fossil records. I would argue that it can't be shown there. You have to accept that evolution is real and then you merely date it in between other animals on a time line and suddenly it proves evolution! But there was nothing in the fossil that proved it. It was merely someone who believes in the theory taking something out of context and applying the context they want and then saying therefore that they'd proved something.
Rev,
Here is some recent studies suggesting that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs at all
http://www.kval.com/news/local/84275777.html
And
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
Rev wrote:
See, what makes all this amusing is that it isn't actually known that birds and dinosaurs are two distinct groups at all. The more we learn about dinosaurs, the more we think "hey, they didn't go completely extinct at all. They survived -- as birds." And here you are, obsessed with finding a bird/dinosaur intermediate.
Tell me, what's the distinctly "dinosaur" trait that makes you say "that can't be a bird, that's a dinosaur"?
I'm not the one debating how to classify birds and dinosaurs on the tree of life and whether fossils would fall into which category. It's evolution that is suggesting they have proof of their argument and using the links between dios and birds to prove their case. Only, what do they in fact KNOW?
The study I just linked to suggests that the birds bone structure makes it unlikely that it is in fact a dinosaur and most likely evolved alongside Dino's (note, it's still positing that there is evolution only not in the way you think)
"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology. "This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed."
These studies were just published in The Journal of Morphology, and were funded by the National Science Foundation.
It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the OSU experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales.
Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse.
"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight."
However, every other animal that has walked on land, the scientists said, has a moveable thigh bone that is involved in their motion – including humans, elephants, dogs, lizards and – in the ancient past – dinosaurs.
this based on this research birds could not have come from dinosaurs. How much we actually KNOW?
Let's first list what form of evolution we are even talking about
[snip]
Jr, I feel dumber for having read that. I mean, honestly:
1. It took you three paragraphs just to reach "one century ago" mark.
2. You end with "finally there's punctured equilibrium", which (a) is from 40 years ago and (b) is called "punctuated equilibrium".
3. You left out major theories entirely, e.g. gene-centered evolution -- unsurprising given that you think "finally" means "in 1972".
4. You manage to get wrong both the descriptions of the theories and the major problems with them.
All in all, an impressive feat.
And in fact punctured equilibrium was postulated because of the fossil record does not show any transitional forms.
For an example of exactly how much of a lie that is, let's go to the author of the theory himself:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Personally I think Gould deserved it, since punctuated equilibrium was more a publicity stunt than a real theory. He built up a straw-man version of gradualism and then made a name for himself demolishing it. He's widely known mostly because his over-the-top statements were misused by creationists like yourself.
So Rev, which version should we be believing in?
Jr, I would recommend you not believe in anything at all. That's probably the safest option, given your difficulties distinguishing fact from fantasy. :)
And on that note, I have finally remembered who you are and that this is your usual schtick. So, moving on now.
Rev: When a person says something like "A scientist does not 'believe' in gravity; he accepts it as a scientific fact", he is signaling that the word "believe" does not mean the same thing as "accept as fact".
And, in fact, it doesn't. Go ahead; look up the word "believe". Notice how all the definitions are about having confidence something is true?
*Accepting* that something is true doesn't meaning believing it is true or being confident it is true; it means treating it as if it is true.
3 paragraphs to explain that your Scientist has Faith.
Cedarford: One nice part about this discussion os that it has "outed" some long-time posters as creationists. People who are rational on other matters.
Ironic on TWO counts. Wow.
Do you not even see it?
1) the thread has outed the evo's as having Faith - they just worship a different version of God
2) Perhaps the "people who are rational on other matters" are actually still right? Its not them, its you.
And why all the insults? If you guys are so certain of your Faith in Evolution, why the need to browbeat those who don't agree with you? You don't want to have a rational discussion about your rational world. Why is that?
Rev,
Steven Gould acknowledges that the fossil record doesn't support evolution. Which is why punctured equilibrium was born.
As he said in 1980:
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. They get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that is stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change it is not evolution so don't talk about it."
This doesn't disprove evolution for him, but it does show that the fossil record shows a lack of intermediate forms. And thus they had to change the theory. Not to say that punctured equilibrium is right or wrong, only that it is at least honest about what the fossil record shows.
Punctured equilibrium seeks to do away with the fossil record as proof, since it doesnt in fact prove evolution. In punctured equilibrium the lack of fossil records a
Is a feature, not a bug.
Rev wrote :
2. You end with "finally there's punctured equilibrium", which (a) is from 40 years ago and (b) is called "punctuated equilibrium".
3. You left out major theories entirely, e.g. gene-centered evolution -- unsurprising given that you think "finally" means "in 1972".
I blame my iPads autocorrect. Once I hit publish your comment, and submit it and relaize the error it's too late. As there is no edit feature, once submitted it becomes a chore to go in and fix the error.
Rev wrote:
Personally I think Gould deserved it, since punctuated equilibrium was more a publicity stunt than a real theory. He built up a straw-man version of gradualism and then made a name for himself demolishing it. He's widely known mostly because his over-the-top statements were misused by creationists like yourself.
I already said that I wasn't a creationist. Why must it be an either or with you. If you want to argue the absurdity of creationism we could do that too. I'm not convinced that the science that supposedly proves much of evolution in fact does so, and in fact falls back on its own belief in the theory to made wild leaps of logic that aren't in act borne out by anything other than the belief hat evolution exists.
3. You left out major theories entirely, e.g. gene-centered evolution -- unsurprising given that you think "finally" means "in 1972".
< br> there are a lot of people who disagree with gene centered evolution, including many evolutionists (including Gould)
Gould also addressed the issue of selfish genes in his essay 'Caring groups and selfish genes'.[20] Gould acknowledged that Dawkins was not imputing conscious action to genes, but simply using a shorthand metaphor commonly found in evolutionary writings. To Gould, the fatal flaw was that "no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them – direct visibility to natural selection".[20] Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes which interact with the environment at the natural-selection interface. So, in Kim Sterelny's summation of Gould's view, "gene differences do not cause evolutionary changes in populations, they register those changes".[21] Richard Dawkins replied to this criticism in a later book, The Extended Phenotype, that Gould confused particulate genetics with particulate embryology, stating that genes do "blend", as far as their effects on developing phenotypes are concerned, but that they do not blend as they replicate and recombine down the generations.[10]
Since Gould's death in 2002, Niles Eldredge has continued with counter-arguments to gene-centered natural selection.[22] Eldredge notes that in Dawkins' book A Devil's Chaplain, which was published just before Eldredge's book, "Richard Dawkins comments on what he sees as the main difference between his position and that of the late Stephen Jay Gould. He concludes that it is his own vision that genes play a causal role in evolution", while Gould (and Eldredge) "sees genes as passive recorders of what worked better than what".[23]
whT role do genes actually play in evolution. Are they pasive recorders of what worked better than what or do they play a causal role in evolution? Who knows? Even within the evolution community you'd have a lot of disagreement.
Therefore if the genes are the information carriers, then they would represent the only means by which future generations could carry on from previous successes.
The problem is that it is meaningless to discuss individual genes in this context. Using the analogy of a recipe for making a cake, this is tantamount to trying to determine whether it is the eggs, the flour, or the butter that are most important in producing the cake.
The point is that these are meaningless questions since the reductionist perspective is an absurdity. It is only when the total configuration is present can we approach a meaningful consideration of what is taking place.
So it is with organisms. They are not simply an arbitrary collection of genes that are striving to individually survive into future generations. They are an arbitrary1 collection of genes that survives because, by good fortune, the organism survives. As a result, it is the entire package which represents the components that can go into the next generation. Is such survival the result of superior genetics? It's impossible to tell. The only thing that can be definitively said, is that whatever the genetics are, they were sufficient to ensure survival to the point of reproduction.
And here's another argument against Gene centered evolution.
While natural selection cannot specifically select traits for the "good of the species", it achieves something quite close by forcing members of the same species to mix genetic materials to produce offspring. This tends to "dilute" the effects of variations and avoids amplifying traits that could be deleterious. This is amply demonstrated when species are isolated from one another and variations begin to occur. If environmental circumstances are different between the groups, then the species traits will begin to diverge from one another. Once again, illustrating that it is the environmental influence on the organism and not the genes that determine what information gets passed to future generations. In other words, the information coded by the gene occurs well before selection occurs. Therefore from the gene-centric perspective the future likelihood of propagation is no more certain than gazing into a crystal ball.
http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/arguing_against_genecentric_view
I''m not even sure many believers in evolution are believers in this theory. Certainly Gould would not be considered a creationist, yet finds This view as problematic. Would you argue that he doesn't believe in evolution? Or perhaps it points to the fact that it's a theory open to much interpretation, even within the evolution community. As are many of the discussions. Does the fossil record show evidence for evolution? Depends on who you ask. Are certain species examples or transitional forms. Depends on who you ask. Are certain animals dinosaurs or birds, and are birds dinosaurs? Depends on who you ask. That doesn't strike me as things that are proven, and in fact strike me as a theorem that requires as much faith as creationism
And Rev, when I asked you which version you should believe in, that was kind of my point with the response you gave me. Because my guess is that 70% or more who profess to believe in evolution, aren't even aware that there are differing views of evolution. In fact most people's view stops at Darwin. So, when you ask do I believe in evolution, my question is,do they? Are they even aware of what they profess to believe?
Or are they as blindly as accepting of their creation myth as are creationists?
I remember a very depressed time in my post-college youth which was founded upon the very (seeming) *lack* of mystery in the world around me.
Mystery?
Bring it on!
I remember a very depressed time in my post-college youth which was founded upon the very (seeming) *lack* of mystery in the world around me.
Mystery?
Bring it on!
Dawkins strikes me as one mixing in some concepts of science along with a bit of pop psychology, and militant atheism, all mixed together and regurgitated as science.
Revenant wrote:
This is why you keep making remarks like "it isn't a transitional fossil, it is a dinosaur with feathers" without realizing that "a dinosaur with feathers" is an excellent description OF a transitional fossil.
would there be any fossil (other than ones of species we are already familiar with) that wouldn't be an example of a transitional fossil to you? If its different than other animals of its type (if we can even determine what that type is) wouldn't it be transitional? Only, thats a lot of reaching on your part and it requires you plug in the idea of evolution and then a link is created between this species and ones that come before it and after it, not based on anything really, other than that evolution says this must have been a common ancestor of what came later.
But in fact it could be true that this is an animal that looks the way it does because it's always looked that way, and if there any superficial relationships to other animals they are merely superficial. It might have three toes and a wishbone, but that may not have any significance other than that a lot of animals have wishbones and three toes. And you could make the case for design on the same premise.
Poodles have many similarities to dobermans. That doesn't mean that dobermans will be anything but dobermans (with whatever minor variations can occur based on the dogs DNA and any environmental interaction). Will dobermans ever be able to fly? Will dobermans ever walk on two legs? They might be taught to walk on their hind legs, but they will not evolve to walk on hind legs. Any changes within an animal are slight. They might get taller, or get different coloring, they might have their snout change gradually. But they don't change fundamentally into other animals.
Evolution would suggest that primates, elephants andelephants and manatees all derive from a common ancestor, which strikes me as silly to say the least. Even if we're talking about gradual changes over millions of years, that level of change strikes me as preposterous. And a lot of it is because these animals share certain physical traits which means they are somehow linked and over time morphed into these separate entities.when all thats really proven is that in certain areas elephants and manatees and primates share some characteristics (as do many animals). All the evolutionary stuff like the idea of three toes changing to one toe is theory, not provable. Manatees may have always looked like manatees, primates like primates. Thus if you find a fossil of a primate, different than other primates, it may simply mean that it was a different primate, one we've never see enforce, not that it must have a common anscestor with a manatee because they both have a perceived physical thing in common.
What was thing that althouse linked to about how certain foods look like the body parts they help? So the almond looks like a testicle and lo and behold almonds are good for male fertility. And carrots are good for the eye, and if you cut a carrot open it looks like an eye. But that's an observatiion that's interesting, very few people would argue that somehow nature designed foods that looked like body parts they help. That's ridiculous. Observations, are just that.
Also, many of the observations of similarities between animals proved to only be superficial. This fish is a transitional form because it has a certainy type of bone. Only when looking at the bone more closel it was simply a bone that looked superficially like another bone. No real Evolutioary connection between the two at all..
Epigenetics is the future.
Also when I say it's circular I mean this. Evolution offers itself as proof that it's true. Let's say fossils are dots, and the goal is to connect all the dots. Evolution looks at the dots, and connects the as it sees fit, but then if you question the whole concept they say, look at how the dots are connected, it must be true. They were the ones who connected the dots in that way, so of course it's true to them. But all I can say is, I see dots. That connection that was made between the dots is not there except that you put it there. That's not a proof that such a connection is real. There are fossils, and then there is a storyline about how those fossils are connected. But must the dots be connected that way? Must they be connected at all? it's a circular belief system. You believe it's true, then when you find things out of context, they are placed in the context you want, thus proving the veracity of the claims.
A fossil does not show any evolution. A fossil,is a complete animal, and all it really shows is itself. Evolutionists show evolution by comparing it to other fossils (which also do not prove evolution) and then provide the link between the two based on subjective criteria which, because they believe in evolution, supports their claim. Even if they are wrong about the initial comparison, it doesn't disprove evolution to them either, it just means that a different animal is the common anscestor.
"Evolution versus Gravity ........... FIGHT!!!"
Gravity has its own law.
Evolution does not.
Evolution is solidly grounded in the cumulative DNA/RNA "biography" of genes or gene-analogs. It's now readily reproducible in digital form with current math.
Evolution is a very strong factor in biology.
Gravity is technically still ungrounded: gravitons are just as theoretical right now as Higg's Bosons used to be. Reproducing it accurately by any artificial means is an ongoing struggle - the maths, data & modeling around describing it or its effects are problematic, in part because gravity waves are very difficult to detect or measure correctly.
Gravity is the weakest known fundamental force.
"FINISH HIM!"
Why replace one article of faith with another? Does belief in evolution engender positive progress?
Evolutionary principles are objective statements about the natural order. Evolution as a description of origin is an article of faith, or, more charitably, a philosophical construct which demonstrates limited correlation with an emergent pattern, but can neither be tested nor reproduced.
It's interesting that people who place their faith in evolution and other narrow observations of reality are more likely to reject or selectively acknowledge evolutionary principles. The principles engendered by this "secular" faith are sponsors of not only cultural corruption but also evolutionary dysfunction. The principles of this faith, other than its characteristics selective nature, are dreams of instant gratification (i.e. physical, material, ego).
I wonder if Nye realizes there is physical evidence that time is not a constant metric.
In any case, the only valid reason to replace a faith with another, is if it engenders principles with a superior outcome. The principles engendered by this "secular" faith have most commonly justified the denigration of individual dignity and the devaluation of human life. They are really not worthy of adoption by any life-affirming individuals or societies.
Post a Comment