Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 367 (30688)
01-30-2003 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by DanskerMan
01-28-2003 11:38 AM


quote:
The problem is not WHETHER dr. Borger can educate you fine people, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.
LOLOLOLOL!!!
Oh, my (wiping tears from eyes), that was funny!
A while back, Peter Borger listed as support for his idea that ID whas scientific support a paper on the deep digital flexor muscle in horses.
I happen to be a relative expert on horses as I have a BS degree in Equestrian Studies and have studied horse anatomy.
To make a log story short, what I think he did was did a search in a database of scientific papers on the word "design" and a bunch of papers popped up. He didn't read them, or didn't understand them if he did read them.
I asked for the link to this psper, and I read it and understood it, and the authors were NOT claiming anything at all about intelligent design of the horse leg. They used the words "apparent design" to make the distinction between what used to be understood about why this particular muscle was so large and what this new research has uncovered, which was that the muscle was so large because it absorbed a lot of vibration during the gallop, not because it needed to be so large to move the limb.
I of course confronted Peter about this misrepresentation of the article, and can guess what he did?
Do you think he admitted his mistake? Do you think he retracted his claim that the article supported his claim and actually wasn't refuting the ToE at all? Do you think he backed down a single inch even though he was utterly trounced?
No, of course not. He just said something like "we'll see what future research holds" and ran away.
Now, what are we supposed to take away from an exchange like that, and all the other similar exchanges others have had with him?
He is a crackpot, that's what I take away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by DanskerMan, posted 01-28-2003 11:38 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 01-30-2003 9:54 AM nator has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 367 (30699)
01-30-2003 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
01-30-2003 9:16 AM


"I asked for the link to this psper, and I read it and understood it, and the authors were NOT claiming anything at all about intelligent design of the horse leg. They used the words "apparent design" to make the distinction between what used to be understood about why this particular muscle was so large and what this new research has uncovered, which was that the muscle was so large because it absorbed a lot of vibration during the gallop, not because it needed to be so large to move the limb."
----------------------------------------
You said it though Schraf,... "apparant design" that is just the evolutionary blindfold that prevents you from recognizing ACTUAL design. For years this horse fallacy has been "preached" as evolutionary proof of horse evolution, until they realized the function. Now it is called "apparant" design. If you would simply accept your Maker, you could appreciate such wonderful actual design.
If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth...yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.
Regards,
S
p.s. I do have one other thing in common with you...I looove food!
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 01-30-2003 9:16 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by David unfamous, posted 01-30-2003 12:40 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 10:55 AM DanskerMan has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 48 of 367 (30721)
01-30-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by peter borger
01-29-2003 8:26 PM


quote:
Borger:
And here I refuted all your claims and I demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the assumptions are false:
http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA
You know that and that is why you completely went mad.
However, I decided to not accept any more of your insults. And if you are under the impression that your analysis was okay, well I think I'll leave you dreaming.
You, of course, did nothing of the sort. You simply repeated your demonstrably false claims and continued spewing your self-aggrandizing mantra.
It is commonplace for the creationist to be unable to recognize their own limitations. I understand that, and do not blame you for this.
A fight against "atheistic nihilism" is an all-out one, and the ends justify the means, no?
Of interst, of course, is that the only people that seems to agree with your take is... well, you. And Jester, but he seems to be little more thanb a dim-witted cheerleader.
It has been shown that you are misrepresenting Dr.Caporale's book - her own words seem to justify that conclusion. You employ double standards, make wild, unwarranted extrapolations, and attempt to use your own definitions and rules to 'disproof' evolution.
it hasn't been working very well for you.
Has it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 8:26 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:40 PM derwood has not replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 367 (30723)
01-30-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by DanskerMan
01-30-2003 9:54 AM


If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth
Using the same logic:
If I tried to convince the world iron is a liquid, I would be laughed of the face of the earth. Therefore, water must be a solid.
Yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.
Evolution is a theory based on that which we observe, not an attempt to offend the religious. Why you think any form of science is 'forced' upon the unquestioning public I don't know. Especially as religious study is compulsary in just about every school on the planet, yet science is just brushed upon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 01-30-2003 9:54 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 10:00 AM David unfamous has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 50 of 367 (30774)
01-30-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by derwood
01-30-2003 12:01 PM


All you demonstrate is that you are unable to listen.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by derwood, posted 01-30-2003 12:01 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 02-01-2003 7:11 PM peter borger has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 367 (31000)
02-01-2003 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:40 PM


I'm still curious about why you think Dr. Caporale's book supports your view. She said her book demonstrates that NRM fits into a Darwinian framework, the opposite of what you believe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:40 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 3:00 PM Percy has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 52 of 367 (31061)
02-02-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
02-01-2003 7:11 PM


quote:
I'm still curious about why you think Dr. Caporale's book supports your view. She said her book demonstrates that NRM fits into a Darwinian framework, the opposite of what you believe.
--Percy
You're just not listening...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 02-01-2003 7:11 PM Percy has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 367 (31122)
02-03-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by David unfamous
01-30-2003 12:40 PM


David: (S:If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth)
Using the same logic:
If I tried to convince the world iron is a liquid, I would be laughed of the face of the earth. Therefore, water must be a solid.
S: uuuh no..that's just silly
(S:Yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.)
David: Evolution is a theory based on that which we observe, not an attempt to offend the religious. Why you think any form of science is 'forced' upon the unquestioning public I don't know. Especially as religious study is compulsary in just about every school on the planet, yet science is just brushed upon.
S: So that's why we have science teachers saying things like: "We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. And I'll dare to say it. It's a fact," said Frisby, who teaches at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, outside Kansas City. "What else will the state board do? Will they take out verbs from English for some political or religious reason?"
Error
Oh no, that doesn't sound dogmatic at all....
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by David unfamous, posted 01-30-2003 12:40 PM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 11:04 AM DanskerMan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 367 (31125)
02-03-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by DanskerMan
01-30-2003 9:54 AM


quote:
You said it though Schraf,... "apparant design" that is just the evolutionary blindfold that prevents you from recognizing ACTUAL design. For years this horse fallacy has been "preached" as evolutionary proof of horse evolution, until they realized the function. Now it is called "apparant" design. If you would simply accept your Maker, you could appreciate such wonderful actual design.
So, you are faulting scientific inquiry because because we do not have all possible knowledge in an instant, and therefore we have to correct ourselves at times when new and better information cones forward because of better investigative methods or better technology.
By your logic, science should be faulted for making advances in knowledge. By your logic, correction of error and making new discoveries is actually a weakness of science!
Did it ever occur to you that there isn't a great deal of research money being allocated to study such things in Equines, and that is why we didn't discover this interesting fact until now?
Do you see how silly this viewpoint is?
It is simple to imagine an evolutionary pathway for why a muscle would get larger due to it's vibration-absorbing ability. Those individual horses which had larger DDF tended to have fewer injuries to the bone in the limb, so were less likely to fall behind the herd and get eaten by predators, therefore they would reproduce in greater numbers.
The point is, Peter Borger, misrepresented the article. He made a big error. He was caught. He refused to admit it. That's why he is a crackpot.
quote:
If I tried to convince you or anyone else that the Eiffel tower was not designed and that it came together by time, chance and natural selection...I would be laughed off the face of this earth...yet the dogma of anti-God evolutionary thinking is literally FORCED upon the un-questioning public.
Um, yes, you would be laughed off the face of the Earth, because the Eiffel tower and other inanimate manmade objects DON'T REPRODUCE. Only things that are ALIVE and REPRODUCE are subject to evolutionary forces.
Man, if you are going to criticize the ToE at least make a token attempt at understanding what it is. You speak with utter conviction that theToE is false, but you have no clue whatsoever about the ToE at all. That is a shameful thing, Sonnikke, to denounce something you have no understanding of; willful ignorance of the highest order.
quote:
p.s. I do have one other thing in common with you...I looove food!
Want to talk about pesticide resistence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DanskerMan, posted 01-30-2003 9:54 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 11:09 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 367 (31126)
02-03-2003 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 10:00 AM


quote:
S: So that's why we have science teachers saying things like: "We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. And I'll dare to say it. It's a fact," said Frisby, who teaches at Shawnee Mission Northwest High School, outside Kansas City. "What else will the state board do? Will they take out verbs from English for some political or religious reason?"
Uh, sonnikke, they say evolution is a fact because it is a fact, just like gravity is a fact. We observe evolution both in the field and in the lab. It is both a fact and a theory. Read this. You might learn something:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981"
In fact, you should read all of the following if you want to understand evolution. I do not think you understand it at all, even though you rail against it constantly. Try a bit of knowledge and understanding. Works wonders:
Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 10:00 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 367 (31127)
02-03-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
02-03-2003 10:55 AM


Schraf: "Um, yes, you would be laughed off the face of the Earth, because the Eiffel tower and other inanimate manmade objects DON'T REPRODUCE. Only things that are ALIVE and REPRODUCE are subject to evolutionary forces. "
--------------------------------
Yes I know you people are hooked on that fact and I suppose that that is the blindfold which prevents you from recognizing and appreciating the DESIGNED world you live in.
Well, maybe some day....there's always hope.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-03-2003 10:55 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-03-2003 12:30 PM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 02-04-2003 9:13 AM DanskerMan has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 367 (31141)
02-03-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 11:09 AM


sonnikke writes:
Yes I know you people are hooked on that fact and I suppose that that is the blindfold which prevents you from recognizing and appreciating the DESIGNED world you live in.
Well, yes, it is a fact that we've observed descent with modification through natural selection. Since we can observe this happening without any discernable intervention by a designer we presume that in the past it also proceeded without a designer. In science it is evidence that counts, not opinions. It is your opinion that living structures have the appearance of design, but do you have any evidence of a designer at work?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 11:09 AM DanskerMan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 367 (31233)
02-04-2003 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by DanskerMan
02-03-2003 11:09 AM


quote:
Yes I know you people are hooked on that fact
Exactly. As percy said, it is a FACT that inanimate objects do not reproduce themselves, so are therfore not subject to evolutionary forces.
It is a FACT that things that are alive are subject to evolutionary forces. We observe those forces at work on those alive, reproducing things both in the lab and in the field.
quote:
and I suppose that that is the blindfold which prevents you from recognizing and appreciating the DESIGNED world you live in.
I am not blind if there is nothing before me!
Look, all we ask for is evidence. You spout this nonsense about "inanimate objects are designed, so living things must be, too!", but it just doesn't follow logically, and you have no evidence of this designer of living things. At least, not that you have brought forth.
We have evidence of the designer of the Eiffel tower. We know his name, we know where he lived, we have a great deal of pictoral documentation about the construction of the tower. We even have his very precise blueprints.
Where is your analogous documentation of your living-thing designer?
quote:
Well, maybe some day....there's always hope.
The only hope you have is to provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DanskerMan, posted 02-03-2003 11:09 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 11:00 AM nator has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 367 (31267)
02-04-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nator
02-04-2003 9:13 AM


quote:
Exactly. As percy said, it is a FACT that inanimate objects do not reproduce themselves, so are therfore not subject to evolutionary forces.
It is a FACT that things that are alive are subject to evolutionary forces. We observe those forces at work on those alive, reproducing things both in the lab and in the field.
All you observe is variation within a species, NOT variation mutating to a higher organsism. You observe micro-evolution, de-volution.
You people with your bogus magic wand which determines what does and does not qualify as design. Your "evolutionary forces" have never been observed to add complexity and new information to an organism causing it to change into a higher organism of a different species.
You are blind because you do not recognize the REAL force, namely the Creator, Jesus Christ.
...There is still hope for you though.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nator, posted 02-04-2003 9:13 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Karl, posted 02-04-2003 12:07 PM DanskerMan has replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 367 (31292)
02-04-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 11:00 AM


Newswise | Leading Source of Research News
One salmon species becoming two.
Wait for the wails "but they're still salmon!"
Of course they bloody are! This is only 60 generations.
Now tell me. What is the barrier that stops much larger changes occuring over 60,000 generations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 11:00 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 12:27 PM Karl 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