Some Evidence Against Evolution

As a research psychologist, I'd amend your statement to read "if you are current on the status of paranormal research then you know that ALL credible scientists question the existence of the paranormal, [although SOME credible scientists believe there is substantive evidence to consider]".

I'll respond to #51.The short answer is "yes".More importantly, secondhand quoting of a another secondhand quote (you quoted Milton quoting Leaky quoting Pilbeam!) isn't much to go on. What is the source of the Leaky quote? What is Leaky talking about in the original source, specifically? What is Pilbeam talking about, specifically? Not in Milton's words, but in Leaky's words or Pilbeam's words?I'll bet ya a nickel they aren't claiming that the evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestor is too meager. Wanna bet?

Anti-Darwinists have a poor track record of quoting, sometimes deliberately, sometimes through laziness. You've already been linked to examples of such by Darwinsterrier. My knowledge of Leaky and of evidence regarding human/ape ancestry is entirely inconsistent with that quote IF the point of the quote is to call into question whether humans and apes share a common ancestor. I sincerely doubt that was the original point.While the specifics of the evolutionary tree is open to much debate, the rough outline is not - and the evidence of common ancestry of humans and apes (and not just through fossils, by the way) is plenty solid enough to fall into the "fact" category.Another reason to doubt that that was the point is the quote is taken from a book by a leading evolutionary researcher on human origins - do you sincerely think Leaky believes that human/ape relatedness is in doubt?So, do you want to take me up on my bet, or not?

Well, we'll see, actually...I've ordered the book through my school's interlibrary loan service.You mention "lamenting the lack of quanity of fossils" - which is pretty likely, but is certainly not the same thing as calling into question that human and apes have a common ancestor! It may spell doom, (at least in 1981 when the book was published) on setting a precise date, finalizing the complex evolutionary tree, sorting which hominids are direct ancestors and which are off-shoots, etc.; but I'm quite confident it isn't over the question of whether apes and humans have a common ancestor in the relatively recent past.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-07-2003]

quote:

---

"what I said is neo- Darwinism 101"

---

Ever read Darwin? You know what topic he never discusses, except to occasionally say it's not his concern...The origin of life.So, referring to anything about the origin of life as "Darwinian" doesn't make much sense. Calling it "Neo-darwinian" doesn't work, either, as "Neo-darwinism" is simply the marriage of Darwinism and 20th century genetics, providing the proper mechanisms of inheritance for Darwinism.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-10-2003]

WillowtreeI've opened a topic called"Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote..."
http://EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... -->EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote...[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003]I just moved it to the "Human Origins" forum. It's now at http://EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... -->EvC Forum: Quote mining? The Pilbeam quote... - Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-13-2003]D'oh - Zhimbo caught the move, making my above edit unneeded - AM[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-13-2003]

quote:

---

If mutation is by random chance then it would be almost miraculous that by chance so many virtually identical creatures could evolve on two different continents.

---

Mutation is random. Natural selection, by the very definition of the word "selection", is not.The creatures you refer to are hardly "virtually identical", which has already been pointed out. Instead, they have superficial similarities because of adaptations to similar environments or ecological niches. (aka "convergence"). This is a prediction of natural selection, NOT a problem.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003]

​

Replace the quoted word in my first paragraph; it now reads "selection"; I originally mistyped it as "random", which doesn't make too much sense...

​

[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-13-2003]

Have you read this well-worn copy? What are you referring to in the article?The article is a journalistic report on a conference, during a time in which punctuated equilibrium was a hot idea in evolution. there are passages which could be misconstrued, in typical creationist style.For example: "...but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." That's Francisco Ayala.Is that what you're referring to?Of course, what he's saying is that the traditional models of uniform, gradual accumulation of tiny changes are incorrect, rather the pace of change is irregular and periodically fast by geological standards.All pretty ho-hum. Can't wait to see what your other quotes actually reveal...

How absurd. Now you're quoting book reviews.P. Forey, J. of Paleontology: "Genetics, Paleontology and Macro-evolution" by Jeffrey S. Levington is reviewed.It's a book review of a book about cutting edge research! Its not a simple textbook, it's a about current controversies. Duh! Of course you aren't going to find The Final Answers in a book about current hot topics in research. I should mention that this book is to some degree an attack on punctuated equilibrium, the idea you rely on for you Lewin quote.Your quote is about the contents of this particular book, not about whether macroevolution occurs at all. How typical of creationist quote mining: take a quote about cutting-edge controversies, and try to spin them as applying to fundamental facts.

quote:

---

Keep in mind the 2 mix like water and oil. See Nature v. 406, pp. 230-233. Secular author T. Gura asks "Can the 2 ever be reconciled?" Answer: No, they cannot, because macroevolution is a myth.

---

Again, you quote not from actual research but from a news report. This time the quote is not from a researcher at all, but from a free-lance writer. Furthermore, your quote appears nowhere in the article, but is the "teaser" written by the editors. So the quote you attributed to T. Gura was not written by T. Gura.(By the way, you keep calling folks "atheist" and "secular" - do you know these terms to be true, or do you assume this based on their scientific views?).Finally, what is the message of the article? That molecular and morphological evidence disagree on such questions as:1. Were the ancestors of cetaceans a sister group of artiodactyls, or a sub-group of artiodactyls?
2. Did modern humans arise through interbreeding of African and Eurasian hominids, or did they arise solely from African ancestry?From our vertebrate/human perspective, these might seem important, but on the scale of the animal kingdom (or all of life), these are trivial portions of the recent past evolutionary tree.Again, creationist quote mining tries to use small-scale controversies to cast doubt on the larger enterprise.Furthermore, you purposely mislead when you answer the editor's rhetorical question with "No, they cannot...", because it is the point of the article to talk about possible solutions. Even if the answers on these points aren't final, you are not free to take an isolated question out of context and supply it with your own answer. Furthermore, nothing in the news report calls into question macro-evolution, just certain isolated portions of the evolutionary tree.

1. To call "scientism" a "branch of science" is at best misleading. Scientism is a belief that may be held by a scientist or a non-scientist. Few folks here would defend scientism, although some might. I sure won't.2. To call neo-Darwinism "Part of scientism" is simply wrong. I know many theists who accept Neo-darwinism. Thus, neo-darwinism can not be part of atheistic scientism.You say "this is not a matter of opinion" and you are correct: it is not a matter of opinion. You are clearly, objectively wrong that neo-darwinism is part of scientism.3.

quote:

---

"neo-Darwinism exists is to claim and to replace the claims of creationism as the explanation of the origins of life.

---

In "The Origin of Species", to what does Darwin attribute the origin of life?God.Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.4.

quote:

---

Many posters in this room want to deny that neo-Darwinism challenges the existence of God. This is silly, of course it does this is the whole reason for the debate.

---

It is not the reason I debate. There are Chrisitan neo-Darwinists. Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, as you are fond of saying.5.

quote:

---

But when [Leakey] says the evidence means that God does not exist

---

Did I miss something? Where did Leakey say this?

I don't give a flying fudge what Daniel Harbour says. If he says what you say he's saying - and I'm not convinced he is - he's completely out of synch with the general usage of the word.Moreover, this is not simply a case of definition - your "defintion" makes claims about how the world really is. It's as if I said "Birds are the branch of humans that have feathers". I can claim that that's how I define bird, but it's still not true that birds are humans. Neither is scientism part of science.

quote:

---

you want scientism to really mean nothing.

---

Actually, any of the definitions in Schrafinator's post will do.I'm not sure what you're going on about in the rest of your post, other than repeating the absurdity that "the reason for being" of neo-Darwinism is to exclude God.If you truly believe that, then why are there Christian darwinists? I know some personally. You also might have heard of this guy called "the Pope". I hear he's a Christian theist.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-17-2003]

quote:

---

I didn't say Leakey said it, you intentionally took me out of context.

---

Really? Then what exactly does this mean?

quote:

---

But Leakey IS saying the evidence is saying that God does not exist, everything he does scientifically is offered in the larger context of assumption that God is not the Creator - this is not a matter of opinion.

---

Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but this seems awfully clear. Maybe you miswrote?

quote:

---

All of my commentary was directed at scientism which was correctly defined.

---

In the interim you've been given an array of definitions, none of which agree with you.

quote:

---

As far as your belief as to what Darwin believed about God - this confirms your massive ignorance.

---

You sure like calling people ignorant. Is it OK if I call you by the kinder term "educationally disadvantaged"?Darwin was a Christian for much of his life, ended his life an agnostic, but was never, as far as I can tell, an atheist. I've read biographies of Darwin, so I consider myself rather well-informed on Darwin's religious beliefs, thank you very much.

Ok, let me try a different approach.1. What, specifically, in his own words, does Daniel Harbour say about scientism. It's not like he's the final authority on the meaning of words, but it might be instructive to all involved to know what he actually says.2. You seem very certain that neo-Darwinism is based on the non-existence of a god, and is part of scientism, and that anyone who denies this is either "ignorant" or "playing games".WHY do you believe this? What are your reasons for believing this? Assume I am not playing games, merely ignorant or misled. Take this opportunity to educate me on these basic points.