Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Star]

[Replying to post 1346 by Danmark]

I gave you evidence against evolution - evidence which you didn't acknowledge or deal with in your reply. People, including scientists, are biased in favour of their views, and tend to rationalize contrary views. The psychological theory of cognitive dissonance of Leon Festinger explains it well.

kenblogton

You didn't post any credible evidence. We did.

How do you explain reptiles with feathers and humans with typical ape-like features?

Funny you mention this, because cognitive dissonance affects science-deniers profusely. Also look-up psychological projection.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1343 by kenblogton]

A. We've found many transitional fossils that you reject out of hand.
If you hope to consider evolution seriously you can't give the misrepresentation that species must be "flawed" (whatever is meant by that) in order to evolve, or that species are final, because assuming either of those is assuming the falsity of evolution and begging the question.
The fact that we don't have a fossil for every observable change is not evidence against evolution, if we did have that many fossils it'd be evidence against how many believe fossilisation works.

B. Given that you have no response for the others, I can only assume you have changed your mind and realised that:
Your responses to 1 have been arguments from ignorance and appeals to unrealistic predictions (the outcome of a lab over less than 50 years being representative of the outcome of an entire planet over up to 500 million)

C. You continue not to respond to 2; two simple questions regarding your view that evolution is inspired by avoiding God.

D. You also continue not to respond to any meaningful statements of 4. Why should we assume mitochondrial eve & y chromosome adam were the first human beings? How can a population of only 2 humans survive? Why do you assume that adam and eve were a couple?

Reply to A. So-called transitional species are not the issue. There are many claimed transitional species. The issue is to find at least one unbroken evolutionary line for at least one species. As Johnson, P.E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity writes "According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years. Because this record is so complete, palaeontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrarythe fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to the next. (51)" Stanley is a respected researcher in the marine and environmental geology division at the University of Hawaii; see http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/people/g ... ley_s.html

No, because finding an unbroken evolutionary line between two species literally means finding every single fossil for all creatures involved. Change doesn't occur in "stages", except between generations, beyond that it's effectively continuous.

What we should expect to find is some fossils that show similarities between other fossils of clearly distinct species. We should expect to find similarities in DNA between related species. We should expect to find behavioural similarities between close relative species.

Once again, it is like someone presenting a number of footprints and suggesting that a person had walked, and then being responded to "the issue is finding an unbroken line of footprints for an entire journey". It is an unreasonable standard of evidence which should not be expected under any system of fossilization.

Reply to B. As I see it, I have effectively refuted your claims and have nothing further to add.

No, you haven't adequately responded.
Why should we expect to observe abiogenesis in a number of small lab environments in less than 100 years given that it only had to occur once across the entire planet in up to 500 million years?

(Maybe even more space and time than that given panspermia hypotheses)

Reply to C. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for life and the diverse species. The big bang is a scientifically neutral description for the same. The life and species big bangs, like the physical universe big bang, raise the question of what caused the big bang. Evolution and spontaneous generation of life, while devoid of solid evidence, are obviously more appealing to scientists, however flawed those views are. I have stated this enough times and no longer see any further need to restate it.

Evolution is no more "naturalistic" than the big bang theory or any other scientific theory is, and no less neutral with regards to theism. "self (imperfectly) replicating species may adapt" is not in any observable way in conflict with theism.

Do you think that it's naturalistic because it explains something that was typically explained by God?

Are all of the theists who believe in evolution naturalists?
Some of which believe that God determined that humanity would evolve from the initial conditions of the big bang, many others who believe he influenced evolution to create humans, etc.

Reply to D. Since Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are the ancestors of ALL human males and females, they are obviously the first. Even though you refuse to accept this, I can't make it any clearer, and so have nothing further to state on the topic.
kenblogton

Obvious response: Is Eve the mother of Adam? Is Adam the father of Eve?

No, they're the ancestors of ALL CURRENT human males and females alive today.

In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all CURRENTLY LIVING anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000"200,000 years ago.

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is a hypothetical name given to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all CURRENTLY LIVING people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal or male lines of their family tree).

[kenblogton]

1. Steven Stanley is a more neutral and so more credible source.

It does not follow that because one is more neutral, one is therefore more credible. Say person A asserts 2 is odd, person b asserts 2 is even, and person c is neutral. Is person c more credible than person b since he is more neutral?

2.

Asking Coyne's opinion is like asking an atheist for a balanced and neutral assessment of the Bible.

Why couldn't an atheist give a balanced and neutral assessment of the Bible?

Reply to 1. If a person has a stated position on a topic, they've already made up their mind on the matter, so anything they say will be coloured by their bias. To ask a committed believer in evolution if the evidence is solid is a waste of time - they've already decided the answer is yes!

Wouldn't it be more of a waste of time to ask someone who doesn't have an answer? The best person to ask would be someone who is acknowledged to be an expert, and who can explain the evidence

Reply to 2. The Bible is God's letter to humankind. Atheists don't believe in God, so obviously the Bible is not taken seriously by atheists.

kenblogton

How do you know that the Bible is God's letter to humankind? Is that balanced and neutral assessment of the Bible, or is that your biased opinion? It is possible to take the Bible seriously without taking it literally or believing it comes from some God.

Second reply to 1. Someone who is not neutral is biased. Stanley came to a conclusion based on evidence, not on his preconceptions.

Second reply to 2. A person who has an opinion before a question is asked, and who bases their opinions on their preconceptions rather than on evidence or logic, is biased. Coyne is biased in favour of evolution; his reputation is based on it.

The Bible is the most well documented and preserved ancient text. If you're interested in a solid balanced source, I refer you to: Kugel, J.L. 2007. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York: Free Press. You can check his website at http://www.jameskugel.com/read.php.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1355 by Jashwell]

I have nothing further to add regarding B, C & D.
Regarding A, you said:
No, because finding an unbroken evolutionary line between two species literally means finding every single fossil for all creatures involved. Change doesn't occur in "stages", except between generations, beyond that it's effectively continuous.

What we should expect to find is some fossils that show similarities between other fossils of clearly distinct species. We should expect to find similarities in DNA between related species. We should expect to find behavioural similarities between close relative species.

Once again, it is like someone presenting a number of footprints and suggesting that a person had walked, and then being responded to "the issue is finding an unbroken line of footprints for an entire journey". It is an unreasonable standard of evidence which should not be expected under any system of fossilization.

My final reply:
5 million years is plenty of time to discover the continuous evolution trail from 1 species to the next.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1354 by Star]

I believe I've stated my position clearly with corroborating evidence, and you apparently believe the same about your position. Let's agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[help3434]

[Replying to kenblogton]

What question is asked? What makes you think that Jerry Coyne wasn't convinced by logic and evidence. You are throwing a lot of accusations of bias without admitting the bias of creationist apologists.

[Jashwell]

Regarding A, you said:
No, because finding an unbroken evolutionary line between two species literally means finding every single fossil for all creatures involved. Change doesn't occur in "stages", except between generations, beyond that it's effectively continuous.

What we should expect to find is some fossils that show similarities between other fossils of clearly distinct species. We should expect to find similarities in DNA between related species. We should expect to find behavioural similarities between close relative species.

Once again, it is like someone presenting a number of footprints and suggesting that a person had walked, and then being responded to "the issue is finding an unbroken line of footprints for an entire journey". It is an unreasonable standard of evidence which should not be expected under any system of fossilization.

My final reply:
5 million years is plenty of time to discover the continuous evolution trail from 1 species to the next.
kenblogton

You don't seem to understand what I mean.

First, we've had like 150 years of evolutionary theory.
So even if there were enough fossils, that's in no way long enough to unearth all of them.


Second, fossilisation is a complicated process.
"Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances, and only a fraction of such fossils have been discovered. This is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record is less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived."
(wikipedia, from Prothero 2007)

Note that this isn't just far less than 1% of all individuals are known to be fossilized - less than 1% of all species are. Imagine how low the chance of an individual being fossilised is.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_01
Contains some examples of known evolutionary lineages.

Here are some
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/ ... 3d1a25.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/ ... 9d87c0.jpg

I have nothing further to add regarding B, C & D.

Because on B you made an unsupportable claim, on C you were poisoning the well with unsupportable claims of bias, and on D you were incorrect.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to kenblogton]

What question is asked? What makes you think that Jerry Coyne wasn't convinced by logic and evidence. You are throwing a lot of accusations of bias without admitting the bias of creationist apologists.

What makes you believe he wasn't biased?
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1360 by Jashwell]

I have nothing new to add. You believe your views and I believes mine. You see your views as reasonable, just as I see mine. I do not see you dealing substantively with the issues I raise, and apparently you don't believe that I deal substantively with yours. Let's simply agree to disagree, and end this fruitless exchange.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1346 by Danmark]

I gave you evidence against evolution - evidence which you didn't acknowledge or deal with in your reply. People, including scientists, are biased in favour of their views, and tend to rationalize contrary views. The psychological theory of cognitive dissonance of Leon Festinger explains it well.

You gave no evidence against evolution. You've given nothing to rebut.
It seems odd to me that you bring up cognitive dissonance, since that is exactly what Young Earth Creationists and anti evolutionists have to deal with on a daily basis. The ever increasing mountain of fossils, facts and evidence that support evolution and the fact the Earth is billions of years old runs counter to the religious belief of a young Earth and causes the cognitive dissonance of which you speak, but do not attempt to explain.

As a former instructor of Sociology I am familiar with cognitive dissonance. It is exactly what a fundamentalist Christian, who interprets the Bible literally, experiences when he is confronted with the deluge of facts that undermine his beliefs. One of the ways such a person deals with CD is to restrict his research to Creationist blogs and out dated non scientific books that are exercises in amateur efforts to cherry pick and misquote actual scientific findings. Rather than admit their YEC beliefs are not based on fact, they claim all scientists who disagree with their beliefs are biased.

Here's an example of the phenomenon:
"Knowing is, in modern times, essentially knowing something scientifically. This kind of knowing is anti-authoritarian and deeply deeply subversive. In its heyday, before and during Galileos time, Catholic church was in absolute control of the society. But, even with inquisitions, burnings at the stake, boiling people alive in a cauldron of oil, the Church could still not keep people from learning sensible things, such as, god did not place earth at the center of the universe. Once a sensible idea takes hold of ones mind"we all know this from personal experience", it causes friction among those mental cogs that turn irrationally.

The convoluted explanations that religious people and creationists give, especially when their untainted young ones ask simple questions about the world, is an expression of cognitive dissonance."
http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/2009/0 ... and-cogni/