Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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


(4)
Message 136 of 969 (724129)
04-13-2014 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Hi Faith,
Let me start where you end:
Faith writes:
Now I'll go away again so all the predictable, silly, rude and nasty answers can accumulate.
You bring this all on yourself, witness:
Besides, the nature of evolutionary theory as hot air simply means there are dozens of ways of denying any such find anyway. 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...whereas macroevolution can't be observed and is made of mental cobwebs, has all the substance of navel gazing...whereas the idea of great aeons of time is purely mental castlebuilding...
So you begin by saying evolutionists are either dishonest or deluded and that the theory is hot air built of mental cobwebs and mental castle building and "has all the substance of navel gazing", and later you complain that you're probably going to get "silly, rude and nasty" answers. As illogical as ever, you for some crazy reason known only to yourself believe you're entitled to polite responses to messages full of insults. If you mount your steed and charge into a crowd swinging your battle axe, just what do you expect the response is going to be. That we'll all bow down and swear obeisance to Lord Faith? Get real.
Sticking to the facts and eschewing insults would help your cause a great deal. You're responsible for the problem you're complaining about, and the means of remedy lie within yourself.
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.
Well, that's bogus. I won't even try to guess at the logic in that statement. Anyway, finding a giraffe in the Permian where there are many land animals would equally falsify evolution.
It would be unique after all so you'd just hypothesize that it was a hoax or the result of some unusual geologic event.
Yes, quite correct. One giraffe in the Permian would be a conundrum, not an evolutionary revolution. How many fossils (of all types from the largest to the smallest) do you think we've uncovered so far? Probably millions, and every one is in the layer it belongs in according to geological and evolutionary theory. If there are, let's say, a million fossils then one fossil in the wrong layer would be a millionth of all the evidence. The odds that a million fossils are painting us the wrong picture and that just one fossil all by itself is providing the true story are extremely tiny.
It would be like excavations at Jericho uncovering an iPod. Even if there were no evidence of disturbances or rare events or chicanery, no one in their right mind would propose that Joshua entered the city earbuds on while listening to a medley of Jewish battle hymns. Until many more iPods turned up we'd have to believe the iPod was modern, even if we couldn't unravel the mystery of how it came to be buried there.
And so after finding a giraffe in the Permian we'd do what the scientific process tells us to do: attempt replication. We'd conduct more paleontological digs seeking giraffes (actually, finding any modern animals would do) in the Permian.
There are people who believe the Earth is flat, others who believe the sun orbits the Earth, and still others who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Heck, some people think they're Napoleon. That such people exist has no bearing on the facts. That they believe as they do is both inexplicable (though less inexplicable in the case of those driven by religious belief) and irrelevant.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Minor improvement.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-13-2014 9:04 PM Percy has replied

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


(2)
Message 137 of 969 (724131)
04-13-2014 8:37 AM


Where Are The Evolutionary Scientists Who Abandoned Evolution
Cedre is apparently away for a bit, so I thought I'd clarify what we're looking for from him. Cedre claimed that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution. Putting a finer point on this claim, he's saying that increasing numbers of scientists who worked in relevant fields and who accepted evolution eventually abandoned it, presumably finding it scientifically untenable. We're asking him for evidence supporting this claim. A list of evolutionary scientists who eventually abandoned evolution would be ideal.
The list Cedre actually provided was for something else in response to Ringo in Message 51:
You keep talking about the critics but you haven't shown that there are any. Give us some examples of biologists who claim we did not evolve from a common ancestor with the chimps.
Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Prof. Vladimir Betina, Dr. Henry Zuill, Dr. Donald Baumann, Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Dr Andrew Bosanquet to name some.
This is a list of scientists who reject common ancestry, not who once accepted evolution and later abandoned it. If Cedre thinks this list serves both purposes then that's fine, but he should let us know if he thinks that's true.
I should make clear that the claim on our side is not that no evolutionary scientists ever eventually abandon evolution. The claim is that it happens no more often than it ever did, which I believe is also true of creationists who eventually abandon creationism.
The claim that increasing numbers of scientists are abandoning evolution has been around since at least the 1950's. Were it true there would be no evolutionists left around today. The more pertinent question is why creationists so often issue obviously bogus claims.
--Percy

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


(4)
Message 138 of 969 (724133)
04-13-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
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.
It's only unlikely because the theory is true.
Evo: John is dead.
Creo: How can you tell?
Evo: Usual way, no pulse, no breath, body at room temperature.
Creo: But your theory is unscientific, it's unfalsifiable.
Evo: What? It could be falsified in many ways ... he could get up and do a jig. He could talk to us. He could, I dunno, start wrestling with a small yak.
Creo: Yeah but the likelihood of him doing that is so small as to make that a worthless test.
Evo: The likelihood is small because ... he's ... dead.
Faith, you seem to be confusing being unfalsifiable with being un-false. This explains a lot of your ridiculous ramblings on this subject.
In the dialog above, we can imagine lots of ways to falsify "John is dead". This makes it plenty falsifiable. But none of them is at all likely to happen. This is because, although it is falsifiable, it is not false.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 12:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 139 of 969 (724134)
04-13-2014 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by NoNukes
04-13-2014 2:01 AM


Re: This is becoming tiresome
Shapiro, does talk about genetic engineering systems directing evolution in response to stimuli, however those systems developed by random mutation and selection.
Wait, are you talking about that Shapiro? The researcher who worked with genetic algorithms to produce highly complex electronic circuitry through evolutionary processes? Functional circuits unlike anything that any intelligent designer (in this case, a human engineer) would have designed? Functional circuits so complex and containing so many interdependencies that they could be seen as "irreducibly complex"?
In trade periodicals (electrical engineering) I had read a number of articles about his work and similar work by others. One of them used a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) to evolve a differential amplifier. The result worked well within parameters, but was unlike anything that any human would have designed, was incredibly complex, and all changes attempted by the experimenter caused it to stop working, so it was "irreducibly complex". As I recall, it turned out that the end result depended far more on the subtle differences in the electrical characteristics of the FPGA components (no two identical electronic components are exactly the same), something that no engineer could have done.
Those articles clearly demonstrated that complexity, even "irreducible complexity", is exactly what we would expect to see in the products of evolutionary processes. People who exclaim that something is "too complex to have evolved" simply do not know what they are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by NoNukes, posted 04-13-2014 2:01 AM NoNukes has not replied

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


Message 140 of 969 (724136)
04-13-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2014 1:03 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
ABE: It's sort of like saying if pigs flew that would falsify the law of gravity.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2014 2:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 142 by Coyote, posted 04-13-2014 2:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 141 of 969 (724137)
04-13-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
04-13-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
Your "point" involved insane babbling in response to the claim that "Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE". Do pay attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 142 of 969 (724138)
04-13-2014 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
04-13-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
When -ologists of various kinds get together to gather facts and work out theories explaining the past they do not consider whether their work agrees or disagrees with the "flood model" as that "model" is 1) a religious belief unsupported by facts, and 2) it was examined and disproved about 200 years ago.
But creationists are better than the Required Reading List or even artificial respiration at keeping such dead ideas alive.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 143 of 969 (724139)
04-13-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cedre
04-12-2014 1:43 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
ringo writes:
As I said, because it means different things to different people.
Well that's not my fault.
It is your own fault that you're confused about evolution, though, because you refuse to take the terminology as it is meant. Jim says, "Pink," and you say Jim is wrong because it's light red.
Cedre writes:
ringo writes:
Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism".
Wow really? Says who?
Weren't you paying attention? I did.
I explained that calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is as obsolete as calling aviation "Wrightism".
Cedre writes:
Now will you finally answer my question, is evolution possible without common ancestry?
I did. Because organisms evolve, there has to be common ancestry. Eventually, the descendants of any organism will diverge into different species. That's how DNA works.
Cedre writes:
When you you graduate with an education degree you are not qualified to be a teacher, you are a teacher, you are qualified to teach!
I notice that you ignored my other example: When you turn eighteen you are qaulified to vote but not every eligible voter is an actual voter. Being qualified to do something is not the same as doing it. No word games involved, just the clear meaning of words.
Cedre writes:
Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist!
You have very low standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 1:43 PM Cedre has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 144 of 969 (724141)
04-13-2014 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
04-13-2014 12:19 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Wow, you've done it again! First you proved that microevolution leads directly and seamlessly to macroevolution (and then tried to hide the fact from yourself by reinventing the meanings of words) and now you have perfectly described creationism and religious dogma as what they truly are, hot air.
How do you try to qualify evolution as "hot air"?
And again it IS all mental stuff, theory, etc., hot air.
And isn't that exactly what religion is? All mental stuff. And religion is far worse off than science is, because religion doesn't even have theory whereas science does. Remember that theory includes testing hypotheses with the evidence of nature, so science includes an element of verification with reality. OTOH, religion does not involve testing its idea with the evidence of nature, so religion is even more purely "mental stuff" than science is, making religion even greater "hot air" than science, by your own definition.
So religion starts with something that somebody said which leads to something be written down -- knowing how oral tradition changes as it's being told, it is doubtful that what was written down is the same as what was originally said. That was all mental stuff. Then people start interpreting what was written, which all just more mental stuff, AKA "hot air". Out of that they build a theology, much more "hot air". From the start of building that theology, they introduce their own ideas that were not part of the writings, ideas about the text of the writings and about the very nature of the writings themselves, much much more "hot air". That process of adding ideas to the theology continues, adding ever more "hot air". And the theologians continue to interpret and reinterpret that theology without any reality checks, adding ever more "hot air". And then true believers come on-line to promote that theology, contributing their own "hot air".
I have great faith in the ability of evolutionists to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit the theory.
Again, you are perfectly describing what creationists, including yourself, do all the time. Because creationism makes the mistake of trying to appear to verify itself against the evidence, but cause the evidence contradicts their beliefs that causes them no end of problems. So they have to expend great energy trying to deny and explain away the evidence. They'll grasp at any straw they can, twist and distort any fact, misquote any scientist, and make up any lie they can in that effort.
Just look at your own efforts in the Grand Canyon thread, where you repeatedly grasped at straws, citing something that you thought you had read or thought you had seen in a graphic, only to be show time and time again how completely wrong you were, that that new "evidence" you had grasped instead disproved your position. Instead of learning something, you rationalized all the evidence away and ended up claiming that you had supported your position successfully. All you demonstrated with that is that you are either hopelessly delusional or an unscrupulous liar ... or both. Similarly, after conclusively demonstrating that microevolution leads to macroevolution, you rationalized that away by giving standard English terminology bizarre new definitions, thus "defining the problem away", an unscrupulous practice of lawyers, the masters of hot air.

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

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


(1)
Message 145 of 969 (724148)
04-13-2014 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
04-13-2014 2:31 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Faith writes:
No, silly, it doesn't verify evolution because even on the Flood model we wouldn't expect to find a cow in the "Precambrian," otherwise and much more rationally known simply as one of the lowest strata in the geologic column. That was my point, do pay attention.
"Do pay attention?" You gotta be kidding. What incredible chutzpah! Faith, you're the one paying absolutely no attention. The only voice you seem to hear is your own.
The particular wrong layer doesn't matter. Discovering that cows existed in the Precambrian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Cambrian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Silurian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Devonian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Permian would falsify evolution. Discovering that cows existed in the Triassic would falsify evolution. Finding a cow in any layer but the layer where it makes any scientific sense would falsify evolution.
Please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion of your issues. Cedre has raised a couple points about how evolution is controversial and about whether there's an ongoing sea change of scientists abandoning evolution. Could you please focus on those issues? Or at least on issues that are somewhat related?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 04-13-2014 2:31 PM Faith has not replied

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


(4)
Message 146 of 969 (724149)
04-13-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Cedre
04-12-2014 1:43 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Cedre writes:
Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist!
According to the Scientific American webpage U.S. Science Degrees Are Up, the U.S. graduates about 235,000 science majors each year (including psychology majors). So I guess to you they're all scientists, even though half of recent graduates are working jobs that don't require a degree, and significant numbers are unemployed. But according to you scientists all, I guess.
The U.S. also graduates around 360,000 business & management majors each year. I guess to you they're all business managers. The recent business major graduate from Stoneham college who just called on me at my place of business last week to sell me a Keurig must be a business manager, though his boss, who I also spoke with, seemed to think of him as an apprentice sales representative of W. B. Mason.
Cedre, you've got to stop being so inflexible, stiff and black/white in your declarations. In some things graduation means you have a meaningful title, like graduating from West Point means you're an officer. In other things graduation doesn't mean anything other than that you're degreed. Graduating with a degree in science no more makes you a scientist than graduating with a degree in medicine makes you a doctor.
You should focus on the points you introduced when you proposed this topic. Or maybe this diversion is part of your plan: divert discussion onto pointless trivialities by making silly claims, declare victory, disappear.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Cedre, posted 04-12-2014 1:43 PM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by JonF, posted 04-13-2014 6:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 147 of 969 (724150)
04-13-2014 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Percy
04-13-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Why so hostile?
Or maybe he's confused and ignorant and can't maintain a coherent argument. Another common creationist trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 5:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(6)
Message 148 of 969 (724153)
04-13-2014 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
04-13-2014 8:00 AM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Hi Percy,
finding a giraffe in the Permian where there are many land animals would equally falsify evolution.
I wish we could find a better example of something that would falsify evolution. I agree that finding the remains of a modern animal in those ancient layers would be pretty sensational and would make us question our understanding of paleontology and certainly require a revision of our current theory.
To me, a better example of a discovery that would falsify the Theory of Evolution would be organisms that do not fit in the nested hierarchy that we see for all life on this planet.
A mammal with wings that are a third set of appendages and not modified front limbs like a bat posses.
Greek mythology was full of animals that would do nicely to falsify the ToE. Winged horses would work doubly well. A quadruped with wings and a mammal with feathers, perfect.
Millions of species of living organisms have been cataloged so far on the earth, plus huge numbers of extinct species, and yet, not a single one has been found that does not fit into the nested hierarchy.
about Faith:
So you begin by saying evolutionists are either dishonest or deluded and that the theory is hot air built of mental cobwebs and mental castle building and "has all the substance of navel gazing", and later you complain that you're probably going to get "silly, rude and nasty" answers. As illogical as ever, you for some crazy reason known only to yourself believe you're entitled to polite responses to messages full of insults. If you mount your steed and charge into a crowd swinging your battle axe, just what do you expect the response is going to be. That we'll all bow down and swear obeisance to Lord Faith? Get real.
Your descriptions of Faith have been spot on. The arrogance of her ignorance is amazing. I am willing to bet that only an insignificant percentage of he 14000+ posts at EvC do not contain insults to anyone or any idea she disagrees with. Every discussion she participates in inevitably includes her protests that she is unfairly characterized, a classic martyr complex.
Faith writes:
Now I'll go away again so all the predictable, silly, rude and nasty answers can accumulate.
And then she's off in a huff.
I often use her as an example of the dangers of self righteous ignorance, religious fanaticism and narcissism to my grandchildren. They find her quite entertaining.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 8:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 04-13-2014 9:27 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 150 by Tangle, posted 04-14-2014 2:37 AM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 04-14-2014 9:20 AM Tanypteryx has replied

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


Message 149 of 969 (724154)
04-13-2014 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tanypteryx
04-13-2014 9:04 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
I like your proposals for falsifications. They remind me of the Comfort/Cameron crocoduck, although of course they misunderstand evolution and proposed it as something that would validate evolution rather than falsify it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-13-2014 9:04 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2014 12:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 150 of 969 (724160)
04-14-2014 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Tanypteryx
04-13-2014 9:04 PM


Re: Why Is Evolution So Uncontroversial?
Tanypteryx writes:
I wish we could find a better example of something that would falsify evolution.
When DNA was descovered it could have shown that the species taxonomists had declared as related weren't. But it didn't, it confirmed the theory. Even now, if an organism was found that used a different set of molecules than DNA, the theory would be in trouble.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-13-2014 9:04 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2014 12:38 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024