If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[We_Are_VENOM]

If there is such a "plethora", the please write a paper, have it peer reviewed, and likely claim your Nobel prize in biology. Should be easy-peazy for you.

I aim for a bigger prize...a prize beyond the skies.

And clearly show you don't understand evolution.

Here is what I do understand; that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

Creation may indeed be true. GASP, did an atheist just say that?!!

And evolution may indeed be false. Yes, a creationist just said that.

The point is, the ORIGIN of life is still an open question. Some of us are unafraid to say "we don't know" until we observe evidence one way or the other.

The origin of life is a problem for naturalists.

However, evolution is observable in the lab. Just because straw man versions of the theory are not observable does not negate the actual theory.

Lets me and you plan a trip to a lab, an you can demonstrate to me how a reptile-to-bird transformation is observable.

If I jump up and down and scream that Jesus was a coal miner and thus completely disproving Christianity does that make me right? Or does it make me someone who hasn't bothered to read the Bible and at least understand the story?

The theory is that a reptile evolved into a bird and that a whale was once a land dwelling mammal. When you take away the fluff and feathers (no pun intended) and all of the techno-babble, that is what the theory entails.

The evidence for the theory has been presented to me...and I regard such evidence as poor, and weak.

The evidence against the theory has been presented to me...and I regard such evidence as sufficient, and strong.

I don't reject the ToE based upon what I don't understand...I reject it based upon what I do understand.

[Dimmesdale]

There is apparent evidence for evolution. Just as there is apparent evidence for the earth being flat, going by our sense of sight alone.

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact. Anymore than any other far-ranging worldview ought to be taught as fact, whether that is Christianity or Mormonism, or whatever. You can say that evolution is a workable model based off of what our senses have extrapolated. No more. To go beyond that is to enter into the metaphysical, and hence, religious.

Neither creationism nor Darwinism should be enshrined as fact in public education. That is going too far and borders on indoctrination. Stick to biology. In other words, the pragmatic. What works practically. Once again, let people come to their own conclusions, not be force-fed so-called "proofs" (and at an early age!).

Bravo to you, good sir. While we will have to agree/disagree as to whether or not there is "apparent" evidence for evolution, I must applaud you for the admission that, "Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact."

Because the problem is, evolution IS being taught as an absolute brute fact...and I am glad that you recognize that it should not be this way...and you are the first person on here that I'm aware of who is willing to admit this.

You get mad respect from me, for that alone.

Honestly, I thought about at least editing my post because I thought I was too forceful (maybe I didn't have to bolden 'certainly'). You beat me to the punch though, so I suppose I will have to let it stand as public record....

I get the frustration though. To even question the idea that evolution isn't true in some circles invites nothing but ridicule. It can make you feel like you are crazy. Instead of a open-minded inquisitive person with a different set of premises as to how the world works, which is what I am.

Then again, I am not entirely open-minded. I have my cherished philosophical ideas, that I do not wish to part with and am completely confident they are true. But then again, just about every evolutionist feels the same way about their ideas. People have the nerve to call you out as narrow-minded whereas their own minds are completely made up. The word for that is hypocrisy.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Honestly, I thought about at least editing my post because I thought I was too forceful (maybe I didn't have to bolden 'certainly'). You beat me to the punch though, so I suppose I will have to let it stand as public record....

Sometimes, you have to place emphasis on certain words in attempts to help get the point across. I use bold words all the time, it helps.

I get the frustration though. To even question the idea that evolution isn't true in some circles invites nothing but ridicule.

Yeah, imagine how Martin Luther must have felt after receiving all of that ridicule from the Catholic church. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but it was necessary.

But regarding evolution, I was never big on the ToE anyway (as far as accepting the theory as viable).

Even as a kid, I always felt that the likelihood of all of that happening by some blind, unintelligent force was slim to none. Since I was never on the bandwagon, it was always easy for me to speak out against it. So because of that, it is easy for me to go against the "grain" here.

It can make you feel like you are crazy. Instead of a open-minded inquisitive person with a different set of premises as to how the world works, which is what I am.

Then again, I am not entirely open-minded. I have my cherished philosophical ideas, that I do not wish to part with and am completely confident they are true. But then again, just about every evolutionist feels the same way about their ideas. People have the nerve to call you out as narrow-minded whereas their own minds are completely made up. The word for that is hypocrisy.

Yes, it is a text-book example of hypocrisy. For example, believers get accused of using "God of the gaps" reasoning by the same people who use "Nature/Science of the gaps" reasoning.

The hypocrisy is real!!

[benchwarmer]

If there is such a "plethora", the please write a paper, have it peer reviewed, and likely claim your Nobel prize in biology. Should be easy-peazy for you.

I aim for a bigger prize...a prize beyond the skies.

I'm going to take that as you can't do it. If you could, imaging the victory for those who deny evolution? If all the others who share your views could point to your peer reviewed research and slam it on the table every time this discussion comes up, there would be little left to debate.

You are also missing something much bigger here. Those of us who understand what science is all about would applaud your efforts in undoing such a grand theory and would then also point to your peer reviewed evidence as the latest understanding of how populations of life forms reproduce. You make is sound as though scientists and those who follow science would be in denial of your findings - assuming they were actually observable and reproducible.

And clearly show you don't understand evolution.

Here is what I do understand; that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

No one is arguing this point. I'm not sure why you keep making it. It sounds like you are trying to refute evolution, but instead state the obvious result of evolution. I think your real issue is taxonomists. Those folks must drive you nuts.

Creation may indeed be true. GASP, did an atheist just say that?!!

And evolution may indeed be false. Yes, a creationist just said that.

It's not false since it is observable in the lab. Certain details may yet be uncovered, but the theory is so far withstanding all observation.

The point is, the ORIGIN of life is still an open question. Some of us are unafraid to say "we don't know" until we observe evidence one way or the other.

The origin of life is a problem for naturalists.

It's not a problem, it's an open question. That's like saying the exact contents of my fridge is a problem for Christians. It makes no sense.

However, evolution is observable in the lab. Just because straw man versions of the theory are not observable does not negate the actual theory.

Lets me and you plan a trip to a lab, an you can demonstrate to me how a reptile-to-bird transformation is observable.

I notice you have conveniently ignored my request for you to show that "a reptile-to-bird transformation is observable" is actually part of the ToE. For the second time, please quote the theory and highlight the text that states this. Unless you can do that, you are just making my point that you don't understand the ToE and what it actually says.

If I jump up and down and scream that Jesus was a coal miner and thus completely disproving Christianity does that make me right? Or does it make me someone who hasn't bothered to read the Bible and at least understand the story?

The theory is that a reptile evolved into a bird and that a whale was once a land dwelling mammal. When you take away the fluff and feathers (no pun intended) and all of the techno-babble, that is what the theory entails.

Actually those are inferences based on observations. The theory of evolution is simply the explanation of how that might happen. You keep conflating things, making things up, and generally showing a lack of understanding of the actual science.

For the moment, throw the ToE out the window - forget that, you already have. Now, go observe all you can about modern day birds and ancient reptiles. If no similarities are to be found, then posit why that may be based on other observable phenomonen. Likewise, if there are similarities, posit why that may be. Test those hypotheses. Rinse and repeat. i.e. do science. I'm pretty sure at no point will you observe a deity poofing animals into existence. You may come up with your own theories, but they will eventually converge on the current theories if you are actually doing science.

[We_Are_VENOM]

If there is such a "plethora", the please write a paper, have it peer reviewed, and likely claim your Nobel prize in biology. Should be easy-peazy for you.

I aim for a bigger prize...a prize beyond the skies.

I'm going to take that as you can't do it. If you could, imaging the victory for those who deny evolution? If all the others who share your views could point to your peer reviewed research and slam it on the table every time this discussion comes up, there would be little left to debate.

The victory will be on judgement day when the words "You've done well, my son", are said to me.

You are also missing something much bigger here. Those of us who understand what science is all about would applaud your efforts in undoing such a grand theory and would then also point to your peer reviewed evidence as the latest understanding of how populations of life forms reproduce. You make is sound as though scientists and those who follow science would be in denial of your findings - assuming they were actually observable and reproducible.

The idea is to get you to heaven. From the outside looking in, most of those "peers" will be scientists who are also naturalists...believing in only the physical world. My presentation will have a "God" implication...and we all know that the hidden (and in some cases, not so hidden) agenda for scientists is to keep the "G" word out of text books, minds, and society at all costs.

Because after all, the "G" word has no place in a purely physical world.

No one is arguing this point. I'm not sure why you keep making it. It sounds like you are trying to refute evolution, but instead state the obvious result of evolution. I think your real issue is taxonomists. Those folks must drive you nuts.

Well, telling me that reptiles evolved into birds is completely contrary dogs producing dogs.

It's not false since it is observable in the lab. Certain details may yet be uncovered, but the theory is so far withstanding all observation.

Observable in what lab?

It's not a problem, it's an open question. That's like saying the exact contents of my fridge is a problem for Christians. It makes no sense.

The mere impossibility of life coming from nonliving material is the primary reason as to why evolution is false (on naturalism).

I notice you have conveniently ignored my request for you to show that "a reptile-to-bird transformation is observable" is actually part of the ToE. For the second time, please quote the theory and highlight the text that states this. Unless you can do that, you are just making my point that you don't understand the ToE and what it actually says.

Did a reptile evolve into a bird? Yes or no?

Actually those are inferences based on observations. The theory of evolution is simply the explanation of how that might happen. You keep conflating things, making things up, and generally showing a lack of understanding of the actual science.

Again, did a reptile evolve into a bird? Yes or no?

For the moment, throw the ToE out the window - forget that, you already have. Now, go observe all you can about modern day birds and ancient reptiles.

I already did...and the conclusion that I draw is; modern day birds came from birds of the past...and modern day reptiles came from reptiles of the past.

To go anywhere beyond that is to leave science and and walk through the "voodoo" door.

If no similarities are to be found, then posit why that may be based on other observable phenomonen. Likewise, if there are similarities, posit why that may be. Test those hypotheses. Rinse and repeat. i.e. do science.

No similarities are found, and there is nothing to posit.

I'm pretty sure at no point will you observe a deity poofing animals into existence.

Interesting, because at no point do I find dead matter either suddenly or gradually coming to life either.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #301]

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact.

This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in the science domain. A theory in science is the result of a hypothesis having been offered, the hypothesis being subsequently tested extensively and scrutinized from all angles, and if it is supported sufficiently and not shown to be false it can graduate to a formal theory. The dart throwing can take years or decades as people test the hypothesis and try to disprove it or find fault with it, and if no one can you have a theory. That's as close to fact as it gets in formal science, so if you're OK with evolution being taught in schools as a "theory", then that is exactly what is happening.

But you appear to be using the incorrect layman's definition of "theory", which is the same as a hypothesis in the science domain. Evolution became a formal scientific theory the same way every other scientific theory transitioned from hypothesis to theory (eg. the Theory of General Relativitity) ... by first being offered as a hypothesis, then confirmed through extensive observation, experiment, analysis, etc. over a long period of time. So evolution is no longer a hypothesis (or the layman "theory") ... and should be taught in schools as proper science because that is exactly what it is.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #307]

Observable in what lab?

How about these examples:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... n-the-lab/
(read the last paragraph of this one)

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/ ... tory_flask

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evo ... 0142-5.pdf
(lots of references in this one to explore the subject further)

Just a few of many examples, and these experiments are relevant because it is not practically possible to observe tens of thousands of generations of dogs, cats, humans, etc. in a lab and study their genetics at each generation. DNA was only proven as the "hereditary substance" (as it was often called back then) by Oswald Avery and his group in 1944 (Friedrich Miescher had identified what he called "nuclein" much earlier around 1897, but did not think it was involved in heredity). Its structure was not worked out until 1953 (Watson, Crick, Franklin and Wilkins), and it was 1961 before Nirenberg and Matthaei worked out the nature of codons and how they worked to encode amino acids. That is only 60 years ago, or only about 30-60 generations of dogs, and high speed gene sequencing technologies are only about a decade old.

So observing evolution in a lab must necessarily use something that reproduces in minutes or hours instead of months or years and has only been feasible more recently as far as being able to follow and quantify the genetic changes involved. But the basic process is the same for bacteria as for dogs (or peppered moths ... Google that one).

[Purple Knight]

There is apparent evidence for evolution. Just as there is apparent evidence for the earth being flat, going by our sense of sight alone.

Most certainly evolution should not be taught as fact in public schools. As theory, OK, but not as fact.

I actually agree but this applies to much, much more than just evolution. There would be very little left to teach. Essentially, just math.

Even language is disputed. It is not absolute. For example, I spell the words colour and serialised and defence correctly, but the spellchecker disagrees. I happen to be right and the spellchecker dead wrong, but the point is, then you cannot even teach spelling.

I think it would be a wonderful and enlightened world if we never told a child, this is fact, when we don't actually know. I believe it would bring about the greatest enlightenment in history that would put all other revolutions to shame.

But we do have to understand just how deep this rabbit hole goes. Honestly I don't think people are ready to grow up deciding for ourselves instead of being told any information whatsoever.

[brunumb]

But we do have to understand just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

It doesn't really matter. The rabbit can just choose to grow wings and fly out.

[Dimmesdale]

I actually agree but this applies to much, much more than just evolution. There would be very little left to teach. Essentially, just math.

Even language is disputed. It is not absolute. For example, I spell the words colour and serialised and defence correctly, but the spellchecker disagrees. I happen to be right and the spellchecker dead wrong, but the point is, then you cannot even teach spelling.

I think it would be a wonderful and enlightened world if we never told a child, this is fact, when we don't actually know. I believe it would bring about the greatest enlightenment in history that would put all other revolutions to shame.

But we do have to understand just how deep this rabbit hole goes. Honestly I don't think people are ready to grow up deciding for ourselves instead of being told any information whatsoever.

I think that collectively as a society we have a vested interest in preaching facts where to not do so would be ethically dubious.

Take the Holocaust. From a purely philosophical POV, yes, it is actually POSSIBLE (technically speaking of course) that it didn't happen. But what would occur if we took this posture in the histories? Many things, no doubt. Racist groups would latch onto the alternative history and try to minimize Jewish suffering, downplay their hurts, and just spread hate and sow distrust and racism. That is not a good thing. The fact that we ought to learn from history, shows that the history we do have, means something. Collectively, the heritage we have should be honored. That is just normal, decent human nature in my view.

But take evolution.... what would be the hurt in saying that it is a theoretical model of what "might have been" - rather than stating, dogmatically, that it is cold, hard fact? Who was there, millions of years ago (assuming there were no humans back then - which most people these days don't think there were). What group is then being marginalized? Certainly not scientists. Scientists are free to postulate anything they want. Society is not at liberty to shove down the throats of youth those things when there is no stake involved, however. Otherwise, propaganda may very well be needed.