Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 121 of 969 (724106)
04-12-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Cedre
04-12-2014 10:30 AM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Hi Cedre,
You seem to be losing your way here and forgetting the claim you're supposed to be defending. You claimed that evolution is controversial within scientific circles, and that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution. You have not so far been able to support either claim.
Even you must concede that your first claim about a scientific controversy is obviously false because you've admitted that creationists don't publish in scientific journals. They write popular press books and write articles for creationist websites. There's a public controversy about evolution, but not a scientific one.
Concerning your second claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution, you've been unable to provide any support whatsoever. All you've done is shown what we already knew, that creationists with scientific credentials exist. No one doubts that Henry Morris and Duane Gish and Steven Austin and Andrew Snelling are real people, but such people exist in no greater numbers than they ever did, and their writings appear in popular press books and at the websites of organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, and not in scientific periodicals like the Journal of Geology or the Journal of Cell Biology.
You seem to be taken by the weird idea that if you claim someone is a scientist who rejects evolution for scientific reasons that it is true until someone proves it false. That's not rational or scientific. We don't think claims are true until proven false. Rather, we view claims skeptically until supported by sufficient evidence. You have so far been unable to provide any support for this claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution.
Even worse, you haven't provided any evidence that the people you listed are scientists who reject evolution, or in some cases that they even exist.
Science is how we know that creationism, the Maya apocalypse and homeopathy are bunk, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are not.
Funny how you equate peer review with science. Sorry mate, these things are not synonymous.
But I didn't "equate peer review with science." You seem to be having continual trouble with reading comprehension. What I said was, "It all comes down to how stiff you're going to make the criteria for deciding what is true about the world and what isn't. The criteria of science are pretty stiff: peer review, replication, theory building, consensus. Science is how we know that creationism, the Maya apocalypse and homeopathy are bunk, and that relativity, quantum mechanics and evolution are not."
So I ask you again: What criteria are you using to decide what is true about the real world and what isn't? At the core of scientific efforts is the scientific method, and around this is constructed an assessment process consisting of peer review, analysis, replication, theory building and consensus. What's at the core of creationist efforts at understanding the real world?
The reason the article appears at Answers in Genesis and not in a scientific journal is because it contains no scientific reasons.
Proof!
Just as people don't go around proving that unicorns and griffins don't exist, it would make no sense trying to disprove assertions for which no evidence has been offered. You haven't offered any evidence there were any scientific reasons in the article, so I have nothing to disprove. Here's the link again: In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Knock yourself out finding the scientific reasons in there.
How do you know he [Prof. Vladimir Betina] even exists?
He has written books! Look you are advocating a conspiracy theory, you are saying this person was made up! Prove he was made up! Otherwise I won't take you seriously.
Sorry, I got Betina confused with the name just before his in your list, Dr. Kimberly Berrine. There's no evidence she even exists.
Concerning Betina, yes, I know there's a Vladimir Betina who has written books, I said as much back in Message 68: "He wrote The Chemistry and Biology of Antibiotics back in 1983, otherwise I can find nothing about him. What makes you think he rejects evolution?"
So I repeat the question: What makes you think he rejects evolution? If you can find nothing he wrote about evolution, how do you know he rejects it, and why? I remind you again, all you did was find his name in a list that you cut-n-pasted. Until we started challenging your list you likely knew nothing about any of them except maybe Sanford.
You say:
What I did say was that he's a member of the Creation Research Society, and I concluded from this that he lets his religion interfere with his science.
Well fine if that is what you want to infer, do so, no one else has to follow your lead.
Well of course no one has to follow my lead, but no one has to follow your lead, either. You're the one who claimed that Dr. Donald Baumann is a scientist who rejects evolution for scientific reasons, and you have so far offered no evidence of this. I, on the other hand, pointed out that he has been a professor of biology and chemistry at Cedarville University since 1964 (Cedarville is "an accredited, Christ-centered Baptist institution"), and his bio says he's a member of the Creation Research Society. All you've done so far is cut-n-paste his name into a message.
What's make me think he's a creationist [Dr. Andrew Bosanquet]? Hmm I don't know maybe because he wrote a chapter in a creationist book aimed at rejecting Evolution and uplifting design in nature,... From the preface of the book it's clear that this is a heavily antievolution and pro-creation book... did you read the book?
Did *I* read the book? Well, obviously I've read more than you. Evolution gets only a single brief mention in the preface, which says about its purpose (and I also include the mention of evolution, which is only one of a list of issues):
Preface of "On the Seventh Day" writes:
The purpose of this book is to reveal the diversity of reasons why highly educated university academics believe in God...No one was asked to write on a particular topic or from a particular perspective.
...
...of the shortcoming of the theory of evolution such as its inability to account for the development of language capacity in human beings, the complex life cycles of plants and the irreducible complexity of living cells...
So that pretty much puts the kibosh on your claim that the preface makes it "clear that this is a heavily antievolution and pro-creation book." Obviously the book's sympathies are antievolution and pro-creation, but it isn't anything like a central focus. So maybe Bosanquet wrote on evolution in his chapter, maybe he didn't. Google Books doesn't provide a complete extract. If you've got the full chapter available to you and you can find where he writes about evolution, maybe you can provide excerpts for us. If you do then that would be the first time you've offered any evidence of what anyone on your list believes about evolution.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.
Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification to final paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 10:30 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 122 of 969 (724107)
04-12-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
04-12-2014 4:21 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Percy writes:
Concerning your second claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution, you've been unable to provide any support whatsoever. All you've done is shown what we already knew, that creationists with scientific credentials exist. No one doubts that Henry Morris and Duane Gish and Steven Austin and Andrew Snelling are real people, but such people exist in no greater numbers than they ever did, and their writings appear in popular press books and at the websites of organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, and not in scientific periodicals like the Journal of Geology or the Journal of Cell Biology.[
James A. Shapiro "evolution a view from the 21st century" is such a scientist who has written many peer reviewed papers and published the book cited above.
He states, inter alia, innovation not selection is the critical issue in evolutionary change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 04-12-2014 4:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 4:44 PM shadow71 has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 123 of 969 (724108)
04-12-2014 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by shadow71
04-12-2014 4:33 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Please show in your own words how this amounts to abandoning evolution.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 4:33 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM Larni has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 124 of 969 (724109)
04-12-2014 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Cedre
04-12-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Professor RAZD is back to educate me again!
I am not interested in speculation, and analogies, science is about showing, observing, and facts. In reality, science includes hypothesis, experimentation, observation, analysis, inference, replication and theory building.
You're just making up an excuse for not having an answer. There was no speculation, no analogy, and you're misdescribing science again. As I said before, good luck defining scientific knowledge as limited to what we learn through experiment. In reality, science includes hypothesis, experimentation, observation, analysis, inference, replication and theory building. It is not limited to what was eye-witnessed, so you're going to have to try again.
Almost all offspring possess a small number of new mutations. Their parents also had a small number of new mutations. And their parents' parents had a small number of new mutations. All their ancestors back to the beginning of time had small number of new mutations. We know this because we've observed that cell division is not perfect - not today, not yesterday, not last week, not last year, not ever. This is not speculation.
These tiny mutational changes accumulate over time. If you imagine that there's some process or some barrier preventing change beyond a certain point and that prevents one species from becoming another or one body plan from becoming another, then please describe the evidence for it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 10:33 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 125 of 969 (724110)
04-12-2014 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-12-2014 11:26 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Faith writes:
It's because it's unfalsifiable,...
I don't think I have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times its been explained to you how easily falsifiable evolution is.
But then immediately after you claim its unfalsifiable what do you do? Why, you try to falsify it, of course. Brilliant!
And your reasons for why it's false? More brilliance, let's enumerate:
  • It's built out of hot air
  • It's about events from prehistory about which nothing can be known
  • Microevolution is evidence for creationism
  • Mendel observed that there is variation within species (which is probably true, but credit for this observation predates Mendel)
  • That complexity can't be explained by evolution is self-evident, meaning that you can't explain it
  • That labeling objections with no reasons as arguments from personal incredulity is more hot air
  • Evolution is the biggest fraud of all time.
Yep, brilliant!
--Percy
PS - Faith, please, no more senseless objections of "You're distorting my meaning, that's not what I said." You're going to have to stop objecting that people don't understand you when they don't use the exact same words and phrases you used. The English language is very rich, there are many ways of saying the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-12-2014 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 126 of 969 (724111)
04-12-2014 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Cedre
04-12-2014 11:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Contradiction bliss!!
If creationists are as powerful as you claim then shouldn't evolution be more controversial not less controversial (you say its not controversial at all)? If what you're saying is true Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see, more often than not is derided by the president no less. What power do they really have? I don't see it!
What I am asking is why, despite the determination, power, political support, money, and numbers which they evidently have, they can't sway the scientific community. Your reply, apparently, is that since they can't sway the scientific community, they can't have the determination, power, political support, money, and numbers which they evidently have. But they do.
Creationism should be taught in universities and science classes across the nation. Creationists should be winning hearings and court cases! Creationists should be able to publish in peer review using their powerful connections! This is not what we see ...
So you agree, at least, that there is in fact little or no scientific controversy. Good. Then instead of asking your question, we should indeed be asking mine: why is evolution so uncontroversial?
Even granted your claim (which I do not grant) that creationists are a feeble and impotent political force, there would still have to be a reason: things don't achieve scientific consensus just because the opposition is a bunch of pathetic jerks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 11:19 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 127 of 969 (724112)
04-12-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-12-2014 11:26 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
I'll tell ya why it's so "uncontroversial" as you put it. It's because it's unfalsifiable ...
But if this was true, rather than being a drooling halfwitted lie, then evolution would be monumentally controversial, since testability is universally recognized as a sine qua non for an idea to even be a candidate to be a scientific theory.
Cedre is of course right that complexity can't be explained by evolution, which is self evident to anyone who can think ...
So you claim both that evolution is unfalsifiable and that it's self-evidently false?
Could you not at least make your dumb lies self-consistent?
... self evident to anyone who can think ...
So, apparently you can think, whereas (for example) the seventy-two Nobel laureates who served as amici curiae in Edwards v. Aguillard can't.
Well, I'm wondering ... if you're actually smarter than 72 Nobel laureates put together, what exactly have you done with your enormous intellectual talents? Apart from dribbling out halfwitted nonsense on the Internet, I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-12-2014 11:26 AM Faith has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 128 of 969 (724115)
04-12-2014 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Larni
04-12-2014 4:44 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
In a nutshell;
Shapiro denies random mutation and natural selection, and postulates natural genetic engineering. His findings confirm his theory that evolution is not random, that the genetic engineering of the cells is driven by sentient changes in answer to the environmental events that occur.
He is a the University of Chicago if you would like to review his c.v.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 4:44 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 04-12-2014 8:32 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 131 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 8:47 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 134 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2014 2:01 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 04-14-2014 1:41 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 969 (724117)
04-12-2014 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by shadow71
04-12-2014 7:43 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Shapiro doesn't fit Cedre's need for scientists who have abandoned evolution. He accepts that species evolve into new species, that evolution produced the body plans we see today, and common descent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 130 of 969 (724118)
04-12-2014 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Cedre
04-12-2014 2:05 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
You sir are a looney.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 2:05 PM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Omnivorous, posted 04-12-2014 9:23 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 151 by Pressie, posted 04-14-2014 6:04 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 131 of 969 (724119)
04-12-2014 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by shadow71
04-12-2014 7:43 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
No it dosen't.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 132 of 969 (724121)
04-12-2014 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Theodoric
04-12-2014 8:37 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Theodoric writes:
You sir are a looney.
Worse yet, he is a boring looney.
I can abide an entertaining looney, but Cedre can't even clear that low bar.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 04-12-2014 8:37 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 969 (724123)
04-13-2014 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Larni
04-12-2014 2:05 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE as that would contradict one of it's predictions.
Yeah but the likelihood of finding a land animal that deep in the geologic column is so small as to make that a worthless test.
Besides, the nature of evolutionary theory as hot air simply means there are dozens of ways of denying any such find anyway. It would be unique after all so you'd just hypothesize that it was a hoax or the result of some unusual geologic event. I have great faith in the ability of evolutionists to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit the theory.
And again it IS all mental stuff, theory, etc., hot air. The actual facts support creationism just as well or better, the fact of microevolution for instance, which is observed all the time and has been known for millennia, fits the nature of separately created Kinds very nicely, whereas macroevolution can't be observed and is made of mental cobwebs, has all the substance of navel gazing. And then there are the fossils, which fit the Flood oh so beautifully, and the strata which fit the effect of deposition by water just as neatly, whereas the idea of great aeons of time is purely mental castlebuilding that weirdly attaches time periods to slabs of rock. These actual FACTS do NOT support evolutionism any better than creationism, and really, the strata fit the Flood a LOT better than evolution.
Now I'll go away again so all the predictable, silly, rude and nasty answers can accumulate.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Larni, posted 04-12-2014 2:05 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Larni, posted 04-13-2014 6:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 8:00 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 1:03 PM Faith has replied
 Message 144 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2014 2:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 134 of 969 (724125)
04-13-2014 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by shadow71
04-12-2014 7:43 PM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Shapiro denies random mutation and natural selection, and postulates natural genetic engineering. His findings confirm his theory that evolution is not random
If this is a summary of the research discussed in past threads, then your statements are a gross mischaracterization. Shapiro, does talk about genetic engineering systems directing evolution in response to stimuli, however those systems developed by random mutation and selection. Further, Shapiro does not eliminate the role of natural selection. He explicitly includes selection. Perhaps you can recall us asking you about Shapiro's references to purifying selection which you acknowledged not understanding.
I'll admit to not having kept up with Shapiro's work, but the papers we discussed back here were summary papers with some data looking into mechanisms present in single celled critters systems, with no indication of how those mutations would make it back into the gametes of multi-celled animals. In fact there was not a hint of any suggestion that of how his 'findings' could apply to organisms other than single celled critters without separation between their somatic and gamete systems. That would not consist of confirmation that evolution was not random in any real sense.
And as Percy has already pointed out Shapiro is not denying common descent. About the only thing this discussion has in common with out past discussions is the confusion about what terms like neo-Darwinism and modern synthesis mean.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by shadow71, posted 04-12-2014 7:43 PM shadow71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2014 2:08 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 135 of 969 (724127)
04-13-2014 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Faith, you said the ToE was unfalsifiable. I showed how it is.
Job done.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 12:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024