Why Evolution is science

Such as?

What? On what grounds exactly do you assert this (without endlessly quoting others - ideally!!) It does not take a genius to see that being relatively undetectable is of benefit to both hunter and prey. A bright red polar bear may well be spotted by it's intended prey long before a purely white one.
The hunter - prey arms race is a common theme in evolution by natural selection and wholly consistent with this theory and with the evidence we find in nature.

They get just about everyone of their arguments wrong. They end up attacking Intelligent Design, and then somehow assume they've refuted Young Earth Creation Science at times too...which is really good for an all out ROFL Bawling with laughter party.Oh yeah, and they always try to attack goof balls like Kent Hovind and William Dembski too, as if thats supposed to impress the YECS position at all...lol. Anyone who calls himself Dr. Dino deserves what he gets here.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

What? On what grounds exactly do you assert this (without endlessly quoting others - ideally!!)Through the quotes which make the points that I need to make. That Hitching a close acquantance of Darwin's mentions that Darwin's purpose was to establish Naturalism as Science, as I stated before. All of those quotes are relevant to the issues that I state at hand.Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodiesIt does not take a genius to see that being relatively undetectable is of benefit to both hunter and prey. A bright red polar bear may well be spotted by it's intended prey long before a purely white one.
The hunter - prey arms race is a common theme in evolution by natural selection and wholly consistent with this theory and with the evidence we find in nature.We agree with survival of the fittest, but what we don't agree with is that Physical traits are described through it. Thus, I believe the rest of your quote to be a Red Herring so I don't see much reason to address it, except to say that what you're referring to is not Evolution.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Like I said, such as?

What should someone who believes that GOD created the Universe and all that is in it be called if not a Creationist?I believe that it is both important and on topic. We are discussing whether or not Evolution is science. Once the concept of Creationism is introduced, I believe that it is important to distinguish between those of us who believe that GOD created everything and that did so through natural means, means which can be examined, studied and confirmed through normal scientific methods and those who believe that it was a tinker doing continuous special creations.The role that GOD plays, Her part in creation, is a very important part of our belief system. As we study science, particularly Evolution, we are searching for "HOW GOD did it." We do not take GOD out of the system, but rather simply stand in awe of the reasonableness, the foresight, that developed systems such as evolution which can actually be understood by man.I am a Creationist.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Their attacks on PseudoScientists like Kent Hovind and William Dembski that are supposed to impress YECS and Progressive Creationism...or something, which they never seem to address at all.If I were to try to refute Alex Chieu, would that impress anybody on the Evolution side? If I assumed that if I refute Alex Chieu, that I've refuted Evolution....how many people would go for that one?Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

And much MUCHH faith. I don't have enough faith to be an Evolutionist. I don't see Fideism as a viable option.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

Hitching is not an evolutionist. he is an anti-evolutionist and one with a poor reputation. Relying on his assertions does you little good. We need evidence, not the assertions of unreliabe journalists with an axe to grind.

quote:

---

Problem no. 1 with this is the fact that no new gain of information has ever occurred, and we should expect a TON of this if Evolution were true. So right away, Evolution is really dismissible. Natural Selection does not guide the change within Speciation.

---

This is a deception (albeit one not originated by you). The term "information" is used vaguely without any sign of a suable concrete measure by creationists. Obviously we cannot make measuements without knowing how to do so. Thus the expected number of measurements of increased information accepted by creationists is EXPECTED to be zero.

quote:

---

Problem 2:
Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals:

---

So the "problem" is that I have correctly represented Blyth's views - and you have not. Quoting Blyth suffices only to establish Blyth's views - and this shows that Blyth did not originate Darwin's idea that NS could guide speciation.

quote:

---

Why do Scientists today claim that only Naturalism is Science?

---

Because supernaturalism is acknowledged to be outisde of the domain of science.

quote:

---

Do you happen to realize that none of that was even considered until the Age of Enlightenment?

---

I know that the Age of Enlightment PRECEDED Darwin !

quote:

---

The Greeks used to combine God and Science!

---

The Greeks didn't do modern science ! And Darwin was a long time after ancient Greece.Given the fact that none of your "evidence" even mentions Darwin - and much of it refers to events prior to Darwin - it is clear that you have no real basis for your assertion.

I think you just about missed every single one of my points here.Are you what C.S. Peirce would call a sham reasoner or a fake reasoner here? You've just obfuscated every single point I made.

Hitching is not an evolutionist. he is an anti-evolutionist and one with a poor reputation. Relying on his assertions does you little good. We need evidence, not the assertions of unreliabe journalists with an axe to grind. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Problem no. 1 with this is the fact that no new gain of information has ever occurred, and we should expect a TON of this if Evolution were true. So right away, Evolution is really dismissible. Natural Selection does not guide the change within Speciation.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is a deception (albeit one not originated by you). The term "information" is used vaguely without any sign of a suable concrete measure by creationists. Obviously we cannot make measuements without knowing how to do so. Thus the expected number of measurements of increased information accepted by creationists is EXPECTED to be zero. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Problem 2:
Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------So the "problem" is that I have correctly represented Blyth's views - and you have not. Quoting Blyth suffices only to establish Blyth's views - and this shows that Blyth did not originate Darwin's idea that NS could guide speciation. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why do Scientists today claim that only Naturalism is Science?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because supernaturalism is acknowledged to be outisde of the domain of science. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Do you happen to realize that none of that was even considered until the Age of Enlightenment?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I know that the Age of Enlightment PRECEDED Darwin ! - quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Greeks used to combine God and Science!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Greeks didn't do modern science ! And Darwin was a long time after ancient Greece. Given the fact that none of your "evidence" even mentions Darwin - and much of it refers to events prior to Darwin - it is clear that you have no real basis for your assertion. - Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.

This topic is ripping along at a fair clip, and it's getting difficult to get a sense of what's being said because of the rapid back-and-forth. I'd like to ask the participants to do two things:

1. Write clearly and completely. That doesn't mean you have to recapitulate the entire context, but filling in a few more pronouns and adding a few more clarifications would help a lot.
   ​
2. Make very clear how your responses tie into the topic.

Thanks!Edited by Admin, : "Filling in a few more protons?" Sheesh!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Yawn. If there's a sham reasoner it's the person who insists that Darwin copied his ideas from Blyth - and then goes on to say that important parts of Darwin's ideas are wrong because Blyth contradicted them.I'd have more to say if you hadn't been deservedly suspended, but that little fact is quite sufficient.

No, Hitching is not on "my side". If Bradbury says otherwise then this simply calls your assertions about Bradbury's standing into question. Checking Bradbury's website (Honest Abe's NLP Emporium) for all I can tell his main occupation is "Neuro-linguistic Programming" - a pseudo-science.From talkorigins.org on Hitching

quote:

---

We define information as being: means information about genes, gene products and inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or a family member. This includes information regarding carrier status and information derived from laboratory tests that identify mutations in specific genes or chromosomes, physical medical examinations, family histories and direct analysis of genes or chromosomes.

---

i.,e. you have a vague definition which does not include any means of measuring information. Exactly as I said. If there is no way to measure a quantity it follows that there should be no measurements of that quantity.

quote:

---

You're missing the big picture here again. Darwin's plagiarism! This is a worldview issue, not a Science issue at this point.

---

Your "Problem 2", which this refers to, was that Blyth disagreed markedly with Darwin. Thus it is evidence AGAINST your claims of plagiarism. Indeed since it was presented as a claim that Darwin was wrong - and that is the only way it could have posed a problem - it is clear that you DID intend it as a science issue.

quote:

---

Thanks to David Hume's rejection of Miracles! Debunked by nearly a million Philosophers since.

---

Even if Hume had been debunked, this would still count against you as Hume and his influence preceded Darwin. You cannot hold Darwin responsible for Hume.

quote:

---

Hume and Kant..roughly around the same time as all of this was going on I'd say. If it preceded Darwin...certainly not by much. That was again, when all of this started to take shape as well.

---

David Hume 1711-1776 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding containing his work on miracles published 1748.Immanuel Kant 1724-1804Charles Darwin 1809-1882So Darwin was not even born until Hume and Kant were dead.

quote:

---

My point is that Darwin plagiarized the texts. Read a bit closer! Obfuscations don't dismiss my assertions.

---

In other words since you can't support your assertion you are going to pretend that you never made it. That is the sort of behaviour that gets you permanently suspended.

PaulK wrote:"To the best of my knowledge Blythe only acknowledged stabilising selection. The idea that natural selection could drive adaptive change, then would properly belong to Darwin and Wallace. Certainly his 1836 paper on Varities in Animals holds that selection forces animals to retain their current form."Whilst accepting the quote you selected, I'm afraid that isn't the whole story. Blyth did, in fact, in one of the articles presented in full on my website, acknowledge the possibility that differences which occurred in isolated populations might occasionally lead to the emergence of new species.Unfortunately I cannot give a direct quote because it's been several years since I re-read the articles myself.One of the problems, of course, is that even now there is NO universally accepted definition of speciation or what constitutes a species. So I don't believe there's a lot to be gained by harping on the fuzzyness of a naturalist writing on the subject over 150 years ago and who wouldn't have recognised a gene if it jumped up and smacked him round the face with a wet double helix.BTW, as a more general point, the accusation of "YECS coming through" seems both pointlessly prejudicial, and inaccurate, in this context.
As I understand it, the translation of the relevant passage in Genesis as "six unspecified periods of time" rather than "six periods of twenty-four hours" has long been accepted by many Christians. In addition to which there is no evidence (that I know of) to show that Blyth was either a "literalist" or a "young earther" of any description.So even if Blyth's work is being quoted by someone who might be a creationist of some description (I don't think creationists are absolutely standardised, are they?), surely the point is what Blyth actually did or did not do, NOT the beliefs of the person doing the quoting.
Otherwise, going by what I've witnessed on other lists, you end up with a slanging match rather than an intelligent and useful discussion.Be wellAndy B.
Charles Darwin - The Truth?
Charles Darwin - The Truth?