Why do evolutionist lie?

[Sender]

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

[The Happy Humanist]

It is, after all, a religious belief, and the holders of religious beliefs tend to think that they have Truth on their side, so no more study is necessary. Many of them think they are getting all they need to know about the other side's arguments by reading Kent Hovind. In any case, they have just about all been lied to.

Dam! You're still condescending, but hey, far be it for me to teach you table manners. You mention Kent Hovind. I think he has some good info. I also don't like his politics. He seems to me that he hates the govorment, and as a former Marine, that's a no no. So don't assume I am a clone of his.

Now what in the heck did I say that was condescending?
1) Is Creationism not a religious belief?
2) Do religious people not think they have Truth on their side?
3) Do Creationists not take Kent Hovind seriously?
4) Did I say you were a Kent Hovind clone? I was pointing out what we generally see around here.

Please tell me how we can correct your misperceptions...excuse me, how we can counter your arguments factually without being considered condescending?

[Sender]

It is, after all, a religious belief, and the holders of religious beliefs tend to think that they have Truth on their side, so no more study is necessary. Many of them think they are getting all they need to know about the other side's arguments by reading Kent Hovind. In any case, they have just about all been lied to.

Dam! You're still condescending, but hey, far be it for me to teach you table manners. You mention Kent Hovind. I think he has some good info. I also don't like his politics. He seems to me that he hates the govorment, and as a former Marine, that's a no no. So don't assume I am a clone of his.

Now what in the heck did I say that was condescending?
1) Is Creationism not a religious belief?
2) Do religious people not think they have Truth on their side?
3) Do Creationists not take Kent Hovind seriously?
4) Did I say you were a Kent Hovind clone? I was pointing out what we generally see around here.

Please tell me how we can correct your misperceptions...excuse me, how we can counter your arguments factually without being considered condescending?

Just implying that being blinded by Christian teaching you say I don't feel the need to search further. And of course your belief is the only way. But don't worry about it. I am not this over sensitive jelly fish. I will no longer point those things out. I mean, if I can dish it, I should be able to take it. This is a getting to know each other thread as well as the original topic. Let's get back to energy creating itself. Did we cover that yet? Not! We ARE closing in on a hundred posts.

[QED]

Try that in a court of law as your closing arguement, and your client will end up in the chair. Circular reasoning runs rampant here, doesn't it? But you are correct, there are no intermediate fossils.

And I'm also correct that in the case of transitional fossils, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because you've already been supplied with a list of some known transitionals. If none were known then things would be very different.

To add a signature click on Profile at the top of the page, then on the tab marked Profile and then on the tab below marked Signature.

[jwu]

If it is scientically provavable and repeatable it is micro. Unprovable macro.

Nothing is ever proven in science. Things can be considered to be very/extremely likely based on the evidence, but never "proven".

However, please comment on why ERVs and Cytochrome C aren't evidence for macroevolution, all you've done so far was to come up with a copy and paste definition of what Cytochrome C is.

[Jose]

Gosh, it's hard to keep up with you guys. I apologize if I'm a post or two (or 37) behind.

Before pasting in the response I worked on offline to a prior post of yours, upnorthfan, I'll agree with you that newcomers should be able to ask questions that have been addressed elsewhere, and us old geezers should be willing to respond civilly--even if we've done it before. Frankly, I prefer a fresh answer to being given a link to somewhere else.

And I'll let you laugh at my origin-of-Protestants analogy. It makes the point, though, that the appearance of a new group does not automatically force the old group to disappear. That's a misconception that people have about evolution, but that they somehow think is ludicrous when applied to something they know about.

Certainly Jose, I can do that. The reason I am adamite about these first two questions are this...

1. Example: Say someone brutally murders someone(God forbid). He now applies for a job. He weaves this beautiful story about what all he has done in his life. He gets everyone to believe in him, and has many great stories to share. But he never tells anyone he killed someone. But guess what. He still is a dam murderer. So a very major part of his life was skipped, and all we see are the good stuff. Say you hire him. Later you find out he did kill someone. Would you fire him? Or would you sweep the truth under the rug?

The more appropriate response would be to use the extant legal system to get a formal conviction or acquittal. If the jury acquits him, then we pretty much have to accept their judgement. If the jury convicts him, then we can fire him quite happily. Sweeping the truth under the rug would be kinda like the current Rove situation.

2. Energy producing energy, and we came from a rock are still in thousands of textbooks today. So why are you guys not willing to answer these questions. Are they to silly, and you hate to admit you're at an impasse? It seems all of you want to skip the beginning, and get right in to all this wonderful info you have. Me too!!! But not at the expense of truth. Let's deal with this, then we can move on. I am pretty creative, but I am running out of ways to ask the same question over and over. Start another thread and answer it if that is your only hang up.

Huh? What's this "energy producing energy" stuff? What's this "we came from a rock" stuff? Maybe you mean "we were made out of clay"...after all, clay is just finely crushed rock. This would certainly be a silly idea, and you'd be right to question it. But look: the current scientific understanding is based on data. Read through the Big Bang thread and see what it tells you. If the universe is expanding at present, then use your imagination or your computer, and run the movie backwards. That's what leads to the Big Bang idea. If it conflicts with religious tradition from 2000 years ago, so what?

If you'd read up on current thinking about the RNA world, about self-organizing chemical systems, you might also figure out some things about your other conundrum.

Note: These are some of the lies I was referring to in my title.

You'll have to be more explicit. What are the lies? Can you quote them? It doesn't do us any good to refer to shorthand terminology like "goo to you" or "monkey to me" or "we came from a rock" because such shorthand doesn't reveal the misconceptions. For example:

ok. I will give you a tidbit. The peppered moth. One of the great examples of evolution. It started out a moth, and ended up a mothWhats the big deal? A change in the gene pool at the very most, a hoax in some corners. Even so, it's still a dang gone moth. And that's considered a cornerstone for evolution theory.

Case in point. The peppered moth story is considered an example of natural selection. It is an example of how natural processes can change the gene pool. Of course it's still a moth! Why would you expect otherwise? This argument reveals the misconception that many people seem to have: that evolution somehow has to create new creatures in a single step. If you learn some genetics, you'll see that evolution can't do what this misconception pretends it does. Evolution works through change in gene pools. That's why it takes so long.

As far as the Icons of evolution, I have not read that. Maybe I will present the same arguements, I don't know. But those Jose mentioned, those I weren't going to use.

They're pretty common objections to evolution, so it's likely that your arguments will have some overlap with Wells' arguments. What puzzles me is that all of them have been discredited, and yet people continue to bring them up as if they were "new, unsolved problems" with evolution. Your peppered moth problem is a good example: it shows one aspect of the mechanism of evolution, but people's lack of understanding of evolution allows them to think it's a "lie," because it doesn't match some private conception of what evolution supposedly is.

Evolution works through normal genetic mechanisms. It's a slow process. It contains no magic, and nothing that anyone would disagree with. It just happens to lead to results that don't match the biblical dogma, so people get mad at it. After all, rejecting science has little consequence beyond looking silly, while (to a Christian fundamentalist) considering the idea that the scriptures might not be infallible has the risk that eternity might not be what you've been taught. The risk-benefit analysis tends to lead fundamentalists to say, usually quite adamantly, that evolutionary science is bunk. It's not, of course--but it's complicated, so most people don't spend the time necessary to figure it out.

[Sender]

If it is scientically provavable and repeatable it is micro. Unprovable macro.

Nothing is ever proven in science. Things can be considered to be very/extremely likely based on the evidence, but never "proven".

However, please comment on why ERVs and Cytochrome C aren't evidence for macroevolution, all you've done so far was to come up with a copy and paste definition of what Cytochrome C is.

I don't know what you are looking for. I thought that was micro evolution.

<b>here is the modern horse arguement</b>

the original horse, the eohippus has 18 pairs of
ribs, the mesohippus has 15 pairs of ribs, mirohippus has 19 pairs of ribs, modern horse is back to 18. (Prentis Hall Life Science 1991, page 500.) Going up and down with the rib count? Come on. thats not evolution.

Here is the problem with the horse evolution:
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from animal fossils he picked up scattered across the world, not from the same location. (He arranged them in the order he thought it happened)
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than anciect horses.
3. The "ancient horse" is not a horse at all, it's a hyrax still alive in South America today. Ribs toes and teeth are different.

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

[Sender]

If it is scientically provavable and repeatable it is micro. Unprovable macro.

Nothing is ever proven in science. Things can be considered to be very/extremely likely based on the evidence, but never "proven".

However, please comment on why ERVs and Cytochrome C aren't evidence for macroevolution, all you've done so far was to come up with a copy and paste definition of what Cytochrome C is.

I don't know what you are looking for. I thought that was micro evolution.

<b>here is the modern horse arguement</b>

the original horse, the eohippus has 18 pairs of
ribs, the mesohippus has 15 pairs of ribs, mirohippus has 19 pairs of ribs, modern horse is back to 18. (Prentis Hall Life Science 1991, page 500.) Going up and down with the rib count? Come on. thats not evolution.

Here is the problem with the horse evolution:
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from animal fossils he picked up scattered across the world, not from the same location. (He arranged them in the order he thought it happened)
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than anciect horses.
3. The "ancient horse" is not a horse at all, it's a hyrax still alive in South America today. Ribs toes and teeth are different.

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

btw Jose, I am originally from Indiana.

[Jose]

Maybe this will help:

Microevolution: change in allele frequency in a population, either through selection (whether natural or human-directed), or through genetic drift. In general, creationists seem to accept microevolution (probably because it has been demonstrated so often).

Macroevolution: the definition varies. As used by creationists and some evolutionary scientists (I think a minority), it refers to the large-scale pattern of evolution and the concept of common descent. Some people include here the notion of evolutionary changes that are "larger" than microevolution, typically diversification at the level of genus or family or higher taxa. Needless to say, these types of changes have not been observed because humans haven't been studying evolution long enough to have witnessed it. It is generally accepted (though there are exceptions) that macroevolution is achieved by microevolution happening over a long time.

[jwu]

I don't know what you are looking for. I thought that was micro evolution.

It's evidence for common ancestry of humans and other apes, such as chimps. I think this would qualify as macroevolution by all definitions known to me.

Some people include here the notion of evolutionary changes that are "larger" than microevolution, typically diversification at the level of genus or family or higher taxa. Needless to say, these types of changes have not been observed because humans haven't been studying evolution long enough to have witnessed it.

The emergence of a new genus has been observed:
Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

(once again, thanks to lucaspa)

[Jose]

btw Jose, I am originally from Indiana.

Cool! We should do the secret handshake!

here is the modern horse arguement

the original horse, the eohippus has 18 pairs of
ribs, the mesohippus has 15 pairs of ribs, mirohippus has 19 pairs of ribs, modern horse is back to 18. (Prentis Hall Life Science 1991, page 500.) Going up and down with the rib count? Come on. thats not evolution.

You need to keep in mind that evolution has no set direction or goal. People like to think it does--and the Intelligent Design crowd automatically assume it does--so that they can put humans at the top of The Ladder of Evolution. There is no such ladder. In evolution, things happen that can happen, whether getting "better" or getting "worse," larger or smaller, etc. So, rib count going up, down, or sideways is fine. "Evolution" after all merely means "change."

Here is the problem with the horse evolution:
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from animal fossils he picked up scattered across the world, not from the same location. (He arranged them in the order he thought it happened)
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than anciect horses.
3. The "ancient horse" is not a horse at all, it's a hyrax still alive in South America today. Ribs toes and teeth are different.

Point 1: there's a whole lot more fossils now than Marsh had. What he thought is no longer relevant. And, the locations of the fossils aren't such a big deal. Horses, after all, can move.

Point 2: go back to my silly analogy of Protestants. They didn't make Catholics go extinct. There's no reason to imagine that "modern" horses should make their progenitors go extinct either. This is still the same misconception we dealt with earlier.

Point 3: hyraxes aren't horses. I'm not sure where you got this one, but whoever suggested it to you was off base. Sure, they're cute little guys that look vaguely like the ancient progenitor of horses, but they're part of a different lineage.

Now you guys have to tell me what happened to cause the big bang. Where did the energy come from?

Dunno. My favorite idea is that the prior version of the universe was eventually swallowed by a black hole. They do that, you know--swallow things. Eventually, it seems, the biggest one seems likely to swallow everything else. Then what? I picture it the way I feel after eating at certain restaurants--full enough to explode. So, it did. Voila: the new expanding universe.

You've made the error of assuming that a current scientific idea is supposed to be Absolute Truth. The only thing that claims Absolute Truth is religion--and then, each one professes a different set of Absolute Truths (which, in my mind, pretty much rules 'em all out). In science, we get data and try to figure out what it tells us. If we don't have the full answer, we still put forward a hypothesis. With the big bang, you're dealing with stuff we don't fully understand, and that we can't analyze directly. No lies there--just imperfect best-interpretations.

Uhh...why would you call it a lie, anyway? Because it doesn't match scripture? Because it changes from time to time as we learn more? Is that why the horse story is a lie--because it has changed over the years? Or is it because you really, really want Certainty, and not this wishy-washy science stuff where the best we can ever say is "the data suggest ...."? Maybe if you think about how science works, and about what it can and cannot do, you'll be able to readjust your interpretations here.