Let us reason together.

I am not asking for anything unreasonable here, Drum.All I am asking for is a short explanation, in your own words, of what scientists say evolution is, and how it works.I am not asking you to believe it.I am simply asking you to understand what scientists say Evolution is and how it works, so that we can then, at a later time, possibly have an intelligent discussion about the evidence found in nature and what it suggests.So far, you have only shown to me that you are unwilling or unable to learn, and that you have decided that 150 years of scientific investigation is utterly wrong even though you have no understanding of even the bare basics of the concept.Give me one good reason why I should engage in any kind of discussion about Evolution with you if I have no assurance whatsoever that you understand it?I do not believe that you have any interest in honest debate.

quote:

---

I am going to be busy today so hopefully tonight. I'm not trying to scoff at your belief and make you angry.

---

I don't actually care if you "scoff at my belief", and I am not angry.My "belief" in evolution is not a religious one, just as my "belief" that the pen that I drop will fall to the floor is not religious. I accept the evidence, in both cases, for evolution and for gravity.If pens strated floating in mid air, or falling up, I would have to change my understanding of gravity. This is the difference between religious belief and the acceptance of scientific evidence; the former does not change in the light of evidence, and the latter does.

quote:

---

I am trying to reason.

---

No, you aren't.You are holding tight to a preexisting belief and are making every effort to avoid learning anything which may run counter to your preexisting belief.

quote:

---

I am iterested in majoring in science.

---

You will get a big shock at university when you realize what you don't know because you have chosen to keep your religious blinkers on.

quote:

---

I have known many wonderful people that are scientists who are Christians and who are not. I was taught evolution in school.

---

Obviously you were taught very poorly.

quote:

---

I was taught we came from nothing. We die and we are nothing.

---

I seriously doubt that you were ever taught anthing remotely close to this in school.Tell me, did you go to a private Christian school where they "taught" evolution as bad and Creationism as good?

quote:

---

Would you all please be willing to look at the creation side as well?

---

You assume that we haven't. I have explored Creation science for 10 years or more and found it severely lacking in any evidenciary basis.

quote:

---

If we are nothing but an "evolved animal" then I believe this statement is true from the bible, "Eat and drink and be merry. For tomorrow we die."

---

The same Bible passage hold true if we are Born Again Christians who believe that they are going to heaven no matter what they do here on earth because they have been "saved".

bumpDrum, are you still out there?

quote:

---

Answers at ANSWERSINGENESIS.ORG.

---

Like I always suspected.Drum, you were never interested in using "reason", or in actual learning or discussion, were you?I have wasted my time with this duscussion, haven't I?

Drum, assure me that you understand what scientists say evolution is.I have asked you at least 8 or 9 times now for a short explanation from you, in your own words, of what scientists say evolution is and how it works.You refuse to do so.I am about to ask you a question, and I want an answer. Please do not ignore the following question. Please answer it.Why should I engage in an evolution discussion with you when it is not clear that you understand what scientists say evolution is?For that matter, why should I engage in discussion with someone who pretty much ignores everything I write?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-19-2003]

Fine.You have chosen to ignore me in this conversation, despite all of my very direct and very reasonable attempts at engagement.As a result of you showing my efforts no respect whatsoever, I choose to completely ignore you.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-19-2003]

quote:

---

What do you want? I have already explained my belief about evolution. Please just simply post your questions that you think I am not answering. Do you want me to explain something like natural selection? Have I not explained evolution? Have I missed something? Please be descriptive. What do you want me to explain???

---

For crying out loud, how much frigging clearer can I be? Are you not reading my posts?I did not ask you what YOUR beliefs about evolution are.I asked you to provide, in your own words, what SCIENTISTS say evolution is, and how it works.PUT ASIDE you own beliefs for now.STOP PREACHING AND TELLING ME HOW WRONG EVOLUTION IS.Pretend you are an evolutionist and tell me what scientists say evolution is and how it works.

quote:

---

What about what the Admin said. Dont give links. Plain text. Schrafinator, will you please explain that page since I guest I dont understand?

---

There is nothing wrong with providing links, only bare links that do not address the specifics of the discussion.I and others have already explained a great deal to you in this thread, so I am not going to spoon feed you yet again. It's time you do some work for yourself here. What don't you understand, from which messages?Please also understand that I do not appreciate the fact that you ignore most of the direct questions and comments I have stated in my replies to you.I have repeatedly asked you to answer specific questions, yet you ignore them.What am I to think about this? How much interest am I to think you have in this sidcussion if you ignore most of what I write?

If this is meant to be your explanation of what scientists say evolution is and how it works, it isn't adequate.First of all, I asked you for your own words. This is clearly a cut-n-paste from some creationists site.Second of all, it is a broad, emotional argument against secular humanism and does not address the specifics of evolution accurately. It is much too simplistic, makes several unsupported claims, and erects several strawmen.Sorry, you get a zero on this assignment.

I just would like to mention that most of this basic information is in the link "evolution for beginners" which I posted a long while back for Drummachine.

quote:

---

Second, macroevolution has never been observed. The extrapolation of alleged microevolution is merely assumed (not predicted).

---

Electrons have never been observed, either. Does this mean that they do not exist?

quote:

---

Making inferences from the alleged data contained in the earth's crust are not equivelant to making meaningful predictions about the future. Predicting precisely what new taxa will evolve in the future from the descendants of humans (or any other organism alleged to have a common ancestor with a trilobyte) would be more in line with what constitutes a real prediction (imperative to real science) with regards to ToE.

---

Meteorology can't tell us if it's going to be sunny or rainy a year from today, so are you saying then that meteorology isn't a science?You are ignoring (or don't know about) "retrodictions". These are predictions, based upon evolutionary theory, of what we will find in the fossil record if the theory is accurate.So far, evolutionary theory has held up pretty well with all of the new discoveries.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-21-2003]

I kinda wanted to point out to Drummachine that he has had this information all along. Thank you very much for putting it up here, Q.Now, Drum, what parts of Q's explanation of evolution are you having trouble with? It's OK if it's confusing. We can help you understand.

Electrons exist because we have inferred their existence although we have never directly observed them.We HAVE observed evolution directly, so there is even better, more direct evidence for evolution happening than for the existence of electrons.

quote:

---

Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate the properties of electrons in real time.

---

Wrong. We can observe the evolution of bacteria, plants, and some vertebrates in real time.Read "The Beak of the Finch".

quote:

---

The fact that we can predict the future behavior manifested by electrons on a rather consistent basis may have even contributed to the developement of the electron microscope (ya think?),

---

Irrelevant.My point was that YOU made the claim that because we have never observed macroevolution directly, it doesn't happen.I then pointed out that we have never directly observed electrons, and if we follow your logic, you must not believe that electrons can exist.You say that the point is noted, yet then go on your merry way without changing your argument. Like illogic, do you?So, do you still think that meteorology isn't a science because it cannot predict if it will be sunny or rainy a year from today? This is the lack of prescision you fault Biology for, yet I doubt you hold any other science to the same standard, because it sounds silly and unreasonable when you do that, right?

quote:

---

which of course, like all other advancements in science, evolution had nothing to do with at all.

---

Also irrelevant to the discussion, but if evolution has nothing to do with scientific advancement, then why can we (very successfully and accurately) use animals such as rats to do research which applies to humans? Why do we do AIDS research on Chimpanzees if they weren't so genetically close to humans?

quote:

---

Same thing with nuclear physics. Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate and predict (in real time) the behavior manifested by atoms under certain conditions.

---

So, what about the retrodictions I talked about? No comment?The ToE has predicted that we would find certain trends in the fossil recors, and those predictions have largely been shown to be correct.

quote:

---

Perhaps you've heard of the superconducter? And surely Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't been forgotten? So, to put ToE on par with the electronic microscope, the superconducter, and the atom bomb is quite the non-sequitur, non?

---

Irrelevant. You do have a difficult time staying on topic, don't you?

quote:

---

Unless the point was to prove the irrelevancy of ToE to real science...

---

Perhaps you would like to list the tennets of science and explain how the ToE violates any of them?

quote:

---

In summary, then, things like gravity, electrons, and the properties of atoms can be demonstrated in real time WHEREAS ToE cannot.

---

Wrong, as explained above.

quote:

---

Turn a fruitfly into a bee or grasshopper and ToE may be able to place itself on par with the other discoveries of science able to be demonstrated and observed in real time.

---

Your insistance that macroevolution be observed in a human's lifetime (it takes much longer than that) is a silly, artificial demand, as I have pointed out. You completely ignore the fossil record.We have never directly observed an electron in real time, we have only inferred it by the tracks it made.To remain consistent, you must deny that electrons exist because we have never observed it directly.If you disallow the argument for Biology that macroevolution takes longer than a human lifetime, so must you disallow the argument that we cannot directly observe electrons because the human eye cannot see things that small.Sorry, you aren't allowed to belive electrons exist.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-22-2003]

Here are photos and descriptions of the series of horse transitionals:Page Not Found | Department of ChemistryPlease understand that, as is true in most evolutionary histories, many of these different species lived at the same time; they didn't progress one after the other.From the site:"How can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if you insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?"

quote:

---

1)How did you get those dates of millions of years?

---

The dates are probably determined with several methods, several forms of radiometric dating being the most probable. The Geologists here could give you better info than me.

quote:

---

2)How is that evolution when all you have are bones of horses? They still look like horses.

---

LOL! Hyracotherium is no larger than a medium-sized dog, had numerous toes (no hooves), and did not have broad grinding molars, yet you think it looks like a horse!Very good, Drum. You are starting to get it.

quote:

---

That looks like natural selection. Not evolution. So a scientist/archaeologist just puts together a skeleton of a horse and you believe that is evolution? Thats not science. Thats your belief.

---

You are arguing again.You cannot learn when you are arguing.

quote:

---

And about your page. Like I stated before your ultimately saying man determines truth. There was no designer. Thats the conclusion. Were here by chance. You say evolution takes place. The only thing that happens is natural selection. A splitting of the gene pool. There is not new information. There is a decrease. And about millions of years. We were not there. You cannot accurately age date the earth. Thats a belief. Not science. There are no transitional forms. One animal has never 'evolved' into another. Thats why evolution is a belief(religion). The origins of life clearly fit with the bible. Theres my sermon! I'll probably get hammered for this!

---

No, you are going to be ignored.

quote:

---

Its still close to that kind.

---

Define "kind". How can I tell one kind from another?

quote:

---

Just because you have the bones of the creatures does not mean one evolved into the other. There bones. There are babies and there are full grown.

---

So, "baby horses" have four toes on the front legs and three toes on the hind lega, and are born without hooves?