Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 31 of 530 (526542)
09-28-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:14 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds?
You've made 4032 posts on this forum, and you don't know the answer to that?
Let me give you a little hint.
YES.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:14 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 32 of 530 (526543)
09-28-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place.
Yes it does: all those intermediate forms, for example.
It shows fully formed and functioning creatures
Yes, of course. Because that's what the theory of evolution predicts that we should see, and the predictions of the theory are always correct.
as opposed to anything in its development stage.
What on Earth are you talking about? "As opposed to"?
Obviously an intermediate form is a fully formed and functioning creature, how else could it be transitional?
regarding the Archaeopteryx, the fossil has perfectly formed feathers and wings that are capable of flight. Also the wing and leg bones are thin and hollow which is what is found in birds today.
It also has gastralia, teeth, independent digits, no synsacrum, a pelvis unfused to its vertebrae, and no pygostyle. Putting it all together together, we find that it is an intermediate between feathered dinosaurs and modern birds.
It does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.
Of course. And not one single modern bird.
Some even think that the animal is still alive today...
But the delusions of creationists are not evidence.
the fossil is apparently very similar to a fox like animal called a Hyrax in Africa.
Did you just call hyraxes "fox like"?
What is it with creationists? You're obsessed with biology, but you're not interested in it.
How long, how frickin' long, would it have taken you to look up the word "hyrax" on Google?
they claim to have found transitional fossils, true. In Darwins day he wrote in Ori/Spec There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained"
And this was perfectly true in 1859, when he wrote it.
Since then, paleontologists have found masses of intermediate forms.
the Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson has spent over 40 years in the research field and he wrote in his book 'The Synthetic Origin of the Species' 1953 p.1212
"It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."
Granted that this was written in the 50's, but surely with thousands of scientists collecting fossils from all around the globe, they would have found many transitional fossils.
And, of course, they have. And the words of one Swedish non-paleontologist writing in the 1950s whom you've never heard of except that you found his name in a creationist quote mine will not magically make that fact disappear.
I used 'Darwins finch's' as an example because they were said to be a compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] but the fact that the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth each time the climate changes seem to be more better explained as the maintenance of adaptation. Whole populations of small beaked finshes died out, yet they came back again decades later! Think about it, the finches didnt go thru an evolutionary change. It wasnt speciation...it was adaption and because the small beaked finches began to be born again, it must have been the genes that was controlling the change, not natural selection or speciation or evolution. The finches did not change to a new species of finch.
That would be why no-one ever claimed that they did.
thats not entirely true
We could not have been created if we evolved. Its one or the other.
You are confusing the proposition that there is a creator with the proposition that he magicked the human species into existence by an act of special creation.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Peg, posted 09-29-2009 8:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 33 of 530 (526546)
09-28-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Another Dumb Creationist Quote Mine
A View of Life states: Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.
This is true. Therefore, I am utterly at a loss to know why you quote it.
Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.
This is laughably out of date and out of context.
Zoologist Harold Coffin states: If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.
This is out of date, false when it was written, and ridiculous. Which explains why it was written by a creationist for a magazine distributed by the Seventh Day Adventists.
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.(New York, 1980), p. 29.
The way in which creationists ripped this phrase out of context to deceive you about what Sagan was saying should disgust you even more than it disgusts me --- because, after all, it is you to whom they are lying, and it is you whom they are deceiving.
---
Of course the fact that evolution has taken place is consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. That's just what Melindoor's been telling you. That's just what you've been denying.
What it is not consistent with is creationist fantasies.
ETA: Having seen the Sagan quote in greater context, as provided in the posts below, I see that Sagan explicitly says that the fossil record is inconsistent with the God of creationist fantasy, but not with "a designer of more remote and indirect temperament".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 530 (526551)
09-28-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage.
Curiously, though, you don't see any single species persisting across the entire geological column. Rather, each individual species is found in a narrow range of fossil strata (e.g., find me a Stegosaurus armatus outside a 5-million-year period of the Late Jurassic).
This implies that individual species are short-lived, doesn't it?
So, if the fossil record largely shows stasis, why do species turn over so rapidly?
And, for the umpteen7-th time, natural selection cannot be realistically expected to favor "underdeveloped" organisms, so every step in a transitional evolutionary sequence must be "fully formed." ToE does not say, nor does it require, that animals get more developed over time, but that their "fully-developed" form must be altered to keep up as the environment changes the status quo on them.
Evolution speaks in terms of "derived" or "apomorphic" vs "primitive" or "plesiomorphic," not "fully-formed" vs "under-formed" (or whatever you think the dichotomy is). "Derived" refers to organisms that have changed drastically from their ancestral condition. Derived animals are not more "fully-formed" than primitive organisms: they are simply more different from their common ancestor.
So, what we see with, for instance, birds, is that derived birds (e.g. modern birds, like the blue jay) look less like theropods than primitive birds (like Archaeopteryx). You consider it a "fully-formed" bird because it has wings and feathers and looks like a bird. But, it retains many primitive characters associated with theropods, which modern derived birds do not retain.
This is not a good reason to doubt ToE.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 35 of 530 (526553)
09-28-2009 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:44 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
I was theistic evolutionist for about a year, but then I learnt new things that gradually changed my mind. but those things don't really define mike. You don't have to pigeon hole me. I'm just mike. mike who struggles to understand life like many people do.
I'm not trying to pigeon hole you, Mike. I was clarifying for Larni who commented that all this time you didn't know something. So I was showing that your position wasn't always the way he perceived it. It was more for Larni than you.
You are free to believe as you wish, Mike.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 36 of 530 (526554)
09-28-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:52 AM


Re: peg, your understanding is flawed
Lots of people can't understand a God who would use evolution and death/suffering, and call it "very good".
The death and suffering exist anyway, even if you believe that God magicked them into existence.
That leaves your inability to accept that God might have used evolution. What's that phrase Jesus had about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat?
In reality, evolution is the only support for atheism ...
Don't be silly. The pain and suffering to which you alluded are excellent arguments for atheism. The fact of descent with modification is not.
... which is why it is dogmatically defended.
This fails to explain why all those theist biologists think you're wrong about biology.
Try again. Why would biologists, irrespective of whether they're theists or atheists, think that you're wrong about biology?
Good luck figuring that out.
You only "allow" a God, if there is an acceptance of evolution, because evolution makes Him look weak and atheism look strong.
One could say the same about naturalistic explanations for thunder and lightning. That won't magically make those explanations go away, nor does it mean that those who advance these explanations are doing so in order to make Thor or Zeus or Jehovah "look weak".
I mean come on, it's entirely obvious.
The eternal cry of the man with all the evidence against him.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 37 of 530 (526558)
09-28-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


What Sagan said
Here's the full quote from Sagan, Peg:
quote:
The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made. Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient designer (although not with a designer of more remote and indirect temperament).
Now, do you think that:
a) The section you quoted accurately reflects what Sagan was saying?
b) That what he actually said supports your position at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

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


(1)
Message 38 of 530 (526559)
09-28-2009 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Peg mining a creationist website again writes:
Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.(New York, 1980), p. 29.
Here's a fuller rendition of what Sagan wrote:
Carl Sagan writes:
The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made. Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient designer (although not with a designer of more remote and indirect temperament).
And of course, anything and everything in the natural world is always consistent with an omnipotent designer who can do anything, including giving the universe the appearance of great age and the fossil record the appearance of evolution.
Peg, when are you going to learn to stop mining quotes from Creationist websites. Science is not chock full of evolutionary scientists authoring rejections of evolutionary science. If you find a quote from an evolutionary scientist who appears to be rejecting evolution in some way, you should assume he was taken out of context until proven otherwise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 8:42 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 530 (526570)
09-28-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:14 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
quote:
For purposes of debate, can transitionals be shown. Birds for example - are there real-life examples of dinosaurs to birds? The claim is evolution, originally, not the facts. The facts therefore have to show evolution. There has to be a progression if it is true.
Yes. There is increasing evidence of feathered dinosaurs (including some new discoveries, reported last week) which shed some light on the evolution of feathers. Further confirming evidence is the special wrist joint that birds have - along with the branch of theropods they are thought to be descended from.
Of course, even without these archaeopteryx would still have dinosaurian features while lacking some distinctive features of birds ie.. a clear transitional.
quote:
The popular answer is that fossilization is rare, and can only show us a small part of the picture. That seems like a fair but weak explanation rather than, "there are transitionals, you're a liar".
I did not accuse Peg of lying (and I do not believe that she knowingly told a falsehood). However there ARE many known transitional fossils.
quote:
There might be transitionals, but the question is; how many are missing, percentage-wise.
If you think that you can find a problem here, then please go, do the research. I've no reason to think that anything is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:14 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 6:57 AM PaulK has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 530 (526575)
09-28-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:14 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
quote:
There might be transitionals, but the question is; how many are missing, percentage-wise.
Curious.
So, you are willing to accept that there are transitional fossils yet you hold on to your belief that god created it all because we haven't found all the transitionals. This is perhaps one of the most perplexing positions I've ever seen a creationist adopt. Usually, creationists insist that there was no change from one species, genus, family, kind, take your pick. They take an obvious transitional like archeopteryx and say that it's nothing more than a reptile and down play the bird features, or they say it's nothing more than a bird and down play the reptile features. Transitionals must be explained away, because even one is enough to destroy the creationist position that evolution is limited to micro evolution.
So, I'm curious about a couple of things. Why are you willing to accept that transitional fossils do exist when other creationists are not? Why are you giving such significance to the fact that not all transitional fossils have been found?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:14 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 7:15 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 41 of 530 (526607)
09-28-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
09-28-2009 8:44 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
I was theistic evolutionist for about a year, but then I learnt new things that gradually changed my mind.
What new things did you learn that changed your mind, Mike?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2009 8:44 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 7:04 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 42 of 530 (526627)
09-28-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Huntard
09-28-2009 8:37 AM


Re: [qs=Peg]im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the
Huntard writes:
So, you accept evolution? You're confusing me.
the salamanders interbred to much that the genes become narrowed down so much that these ones could no longer breed with the other ones
i believe this is more about genetics then evolution, but if you want to call it evolution then go ahead. The salamanders are still salamanders.
donkeys horses and mules are another example of how two of the species can breed to a point but no further. They are all still equine though.
Huntard writes:
Really? God could not have guided evolution? So, he's not omnipotent?
no, because he's a God of Order, not of disorder. If he wasnt involved the creation of the great variety of species on earth, then he cant lay claim to being the creator of them. Yet he does lay claim to being the creator of them. So either he did create them, or he didnt.
its one or the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Huntard, posted 09-28-2009 8:37 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Huntard, posted 09-29-2009 12:47 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 55 by Meldinoor, posted 09-29-2009 1:46 AM Peg has replied
 Message 60 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 3:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 43 of 530 (526634)
09-28-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by greyseal
09-28-2009 8:49 AM


Re: peg, your understanding is flawed
greyseal writes:
What it IS is a slow progression from one form to another, via what you would happily call "microevolution" until what we call "speciation" occurs (and yes, people with greater knowledge than me may well disagree on some points and the definition, but I think for this level, it's broadly true)
the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. But what has more then 50 years of research and experimentation with mutatins produced? Are you aware that since the 30's biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular, tried inducing and selecting favorable mutations to attempt to produce new and better plants and animals?
Around the world they have put millions into research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. after more than 40 years of intensive research, Peter von Sengbusch, one researcher said that the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.
By the 1980’s, most scientists had abandoned mutation breeding in Western countries because it simply failed. Almost all the mutants they produced died or were weaker than wild varieties.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, a german scientist from the Max Planck Institute said
quote:
Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20thcentury taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.
Think about that for moment. If even highly trained scientists cannot produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?
greyseal writes:
darwin's finches "oscillating back and forth" - uh, so? Not a problem, really it isn't.
if the finches really did develop into a new species, as the theory suggests, then why should they return to what they were?
it means the species never changed...it was the same species only with different traits. therefore it is a problem for evolution by natural selection.
greyseal writes:
Of course, it does negate the bible as a literal account, but we all know you don't think it's a literal account either.
i certainly do believe it is a literal account. God created each species directly, thats my literal understanding. He didnt leave it all to chance, he didnt start the ball rolling then let it all go its own wild way. No, "According to their Kinds, he created them"
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by greyseal, posted 09-28-2009 8:49 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2009 9:42 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2009 9:55 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 52 by Meldinoor, posted 09-28-2009 10:52 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 56 by greyseal, posted 09-29-2009 3:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 44 of 530 (526635)
09-28-2009 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
09-28-2009 11:24 AM


Percy writes:
If you find a quote from an evolutionary scientist who appears to be rejecting evolution in some way, you should assume he was taken out of context until proven otherwise.
the point of Sagans quote was to show that he was acknowledging that the fossil record shows great design. The design in living things could not have come about by random mutations...the emphasis is on his description of a 'design' in nature
how can we look at the evidence of design, then say its all a result of slow random mutation
that makes no sense. Its contrary to the evidence that we see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 09-28-2009 11:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2009 9:47 PM Peg has replied
 Message 49 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-28-2009 9:58 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 09-29-2009 7:53 AM Peg has replied
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 09-29-2009 8:10 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 45 of 530 (526639)
09-28-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Peg
09-28-2009 8:37 PM


Re: peg, your understanding is flawed
i certainly do believe it is a literal account. God created each species directly, thats my literal understanding. He didnt leave it all to chance, he didnt start the ball rolling then let it all go its own wild way. No, "According to their Kinds, he created them"
That's a religious belief.
It has no necessary relationship to the real world.
In fact, most such religious beliefs are contradicted by real world evidence. "Kinds," for example, is a religious belief that has failed the test against empirical evidence.
Believe what you want, but don't call it science, and don't confuse it with what real world evidence has shown to have happened.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 8:37 PM Peg 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