Evolution

[keithprosser3]

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

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1343 by kenblogton]

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.

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)

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

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?

[Star]

[Replying to post 1342 by kenblogton]
"Darwin on Trial" is a 23-year-old book written by a Christian law professor, and subsequently discredited and shunned by science and secular academia.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1340 by Danmark]
Here's what Wikipedia says about Jerry Coyne:
Jerry Allen Coyne (born December 30, 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on intelligent design. A prolific scientist and author, he has published dozens of papers elucidating the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila. He is the author of the text Speciation and the bestselling non-fiction book Why Evolution Is True.[6] Coyne maintains a website also called Why Evolution Is True.

Cone [sic] is no unbiased source to assess evidence - he's a committed evolutionist.

This is an absurd argument, but I suppose it is the only one left to the "committed creationist." The difference is that any true scientist, including evolutionary biologists, are open to new facts and will adjust their theories based upon new evidence. In that sense they are not "committed" to anything except the search for truth based on evidence.

However, the "committed" creationist relies on his religious beliefs. To the extent he looks at facts and evidence at all, he cherry picks and distorts them to fit something he thinks supports his religious convictions.

The argument that an evolutionary biologist is "biased" is simply another way of saying he looks for truth without bias. To automatically call any scientist "biased," simply because he looks for facts and theories by employing the scientific method is to misunderstand the essence of science. It is the scientific method itself that the creationist is at war with, because that method does not automatically support religious beliefs.

According to your argument virtually every biologist who studies evolution and is recognized by his peers in the scientific community is "biased." That is a neat way to dismiss all science and biology and the dozen other scientific communities who have discovered facts that support the theory of evolution and dismiss all of them in favor of tiny minority [usually pseudo scientists] who use their 3d rate understanding of science to support their true agenda: the magical thinking of their religious beliefs.

[SEMyers]

[Replying to post 1346 by Danmark]

Greetings Danmakr

In a perfect world, a perfect zeal for truth, without any political pressures from peers or politics . . . you are totally correct. Science puts forth an hypothesis and constantly tests and retests as new facts are discovered and understood.

However, this world is not perfect. No one truly seeks truth. All are influenced by peers and politics. This is why most who endorse a young earth don't get their doctorates - their graduate committees find clever ways to stop them. If they do get an advanced degree, the number of jobs truly available to them are very limited.

Reseach is done to verify a philosophy in science as much as Bible study is done to prove creeds in religion.

S. E. Myers

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1346 by Danmark]

Greetings Danmakr

In a perfect world, a perfect zeal for truth, without any political pressures from peers or politics . . . you are totally correct. Science puts forth an hypothesis and constantly tests and retests as new facts are discovered and understood.

However, this world is not perfect. No one truly seeks truth. All are influenced by peers and politics. This is why most who endorse a young earth don't get their doctorates - their graduate committees find clever ways to stop them. If they do get an advanced degree, the number of jobs truly available to them are very limited.

Reseach is done to verify a philosophy in science as much as Bible study is done to prove creeds in religion.

S. E. Myers

I appreciate and think I understand that perspective. But I disagree with it.
A Christian can earn his Ph.D whether he believes Jesus is divine in a special way, or merely a man. A Ph.D candidate in science must find something novel, something new, something special to qualify his thesis. That is what science looks for, something that expands the existing boundaries of knowledge. This perspective actually encourages an evolutionary biologist Ph.D. candidate to come up with a novel perspective that might challenge the existing 'truths.' The problem is, that he would actually have to have facts to buttress his theory or perspective.

If someone with a creationist perspective could actually accumulate the facts necessary to refute some accepted principle of evolutionary theory, she would not only be allowed to pursue her Ph.D, but she would have a best seller and probably be awarded the Nobel Prize in biology. Therefore, there is tremendous incentive to be original and go counter to the prevailing prejudices and theories. In short, I don't buy your thesis.

[help3434]

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?

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?

[kenblogton]

[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 contrary…“the 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

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

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.

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

[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!

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

[kenblogton]

[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

[help3434]

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.