Evolution Theory Facing Crisis

Evolution Theory Facing Crisis

There are 229 comments on the KKLA-FM Glendale story from Aug 18, 2014, titled Evolution Theory Facing Crisis. In it, KKLA-FM Glendale reports that:

"Bill Nye the Science Guy" wrapped up its twentieth anniversary year recently. Nye has done great work encouraging kids to pursue careers in the natural sciences, but has also in recent years become somewhat of a fundamentalist of secularism, particularly in his promotion of Darwinian evolution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KKLA-FM Glendale.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#42 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
By the way folks, do all these changes the site's doing to the commenting and navigation system suck balls or what?
Agreed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

How about they work on a GODDAMN EDITING FEATURE!!!!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#43 Aug 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
How about they work on a GODDAMN EDITING FEATURE!!!!
I understand that frustration, but imagine the trouble of referencing previous posts if that feature exists. Not to mention all the tricks fundies could play, bad enough with sockpuppets as it is (recall Josh Greenburger for example). Personally I think it's enough to just correct yourself with a subsequent post. Or maybe have what some blogs have and give you a fifteen minute window to use your edit function until your post is set in stone.
douglas

Canada

#44 Aug 21, 2014
TedHohio, you use Archaeopteryx as a excample for transitional fossils.Paleontologists now mostly agree that there are too many structural differences for Archaeopteryx to be the ancestor of modern birds.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#45 Aug 21, 2014
douglas wrote:
TedHohio, you use Archaeopteryx as a excample for transitional fossils.Paleontologists now mostly agree that there are too many structural differences for Archaeopteryx to be the ancestor of modern birds.
Actually the recent work supports that Archaeopteryx is still a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds, but that it may not be on the direct path to modern birds. It's more likely an relative of the line that led to modern birds. If you are going to correct someone. However, like all real science, details get adjusted as we learn more and more. Further studies might move it closer to dinosaurs, or closer to more modern birds. It might also lead to a line that went extinct. But it's still a transitional fossil. Which is what I said. I think my words were
Prominent other examples include Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, and Runcaria.
. Nature has shown plenty of off-ramps when examining direct evolutionary paths. Care to try again?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#46 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
TedHohio, you use Archaeopteryx as a excample for transitional fossils.Paleontologists now mostly agree that there are too many structural differences for Archaeopteryx to be the ancestor of modern birds.
If that was the case then how come we **know** you're lying?

Firstly, that's a rather silly claim to make since evolution is supported by the vast majority of the science community, and evolution started off 3.5 billion years ago with single-celled organisms. So if you think the differences were too much with archie and birds imagine the differences between any of us and ancient unicellular life. That is why we know it's exceedingly silly to claim that science thinks there's "too many" structural differences between Archie and birds. What they MAY say is that there's enough structural differences to put it on a different hierachial branch which didn't lead to birds, as I imply below. They aren't claiming that evolution did not or could not occur.

Secondly, the view of Archie if I recall is not that it was definitely a bird ancestor because they think that particular branch eventually led to extinction. But organisms like Archie had similar contemporaries which DID lead to birds.

Thirdly, your objection doesn't account for the fact that Archie is a SUCCESSFUL prediction of a transitional that has both bird AND dinosaur characteristics. There is no reason for this to exist if evolution is not correct. And if evolution was not correct there would be no way to predict the existence of these type of organisms.

Evolution makes predictions like these all the time. No-one so far has been able to come up with an alternative theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence.

So do you wanna quit BSing us and admit your objections are based in ancient superstitions or would you prefer to stick around and see all your nonsense claims picked to pieces by scientific evidence?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#47 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
TedHohio, you use Archaeopteryx as a excample for transitional fossils.Paleontologists now mostly agree that there are too many structural differences for Archaeopteryx to be the ancestor of modern birds.
The evidence for evolution is not demonstrating the exact genealogy of species (for instance of birds) but demonstrating the gradual transition of relevant TRAITS in the phenology.

Archaeopteryx clearly is a perfect intermediary between small feathered dinosaurs and early birds.
The phenology of such an intermediary species, with a mix of traits of the ancestral group of animals (feathered dinosaurs) and the descendant group (birds), suffices (EVEN when that intermediary species is not the direct ancestor of the descendant group), IF:
- the mix of traits relates to relevant traits (for instance, a primordial wing is relevant but the colour of the feathers isn't).
- every advancement in the transition of every relevant trait should be advantageous. This follows from the central idea of evolution theory that only the genes that bring better survival and reproduction chances, will be passed to the next generation (= natural selection). Hence half a wing is indeed better than no wing because it enables the animal to glide in the wind, escaping from predators when jumping off a tree - for instance.
- the transition of the relevant traits should appear in a chronologically logical order.

All these requirements are fulfilled in Archaeopteryx fossils.
The fact that its anatomy also proves it is not the direct ancestor of modern birds, is not a big deal.

Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the only fossil evidence of the dinosaur > bird transition.
The fossil evidence is rather extensive, including Maniraptora, their most likely ancestors (with not-flying dinosaurs that had almost the same head as parrots and who were feathered, like Longisquama), along with a bunch of intermediary fossils, like Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Cryptovolans, Rahonavis, Protoavis texensis, Confuciusornis, Enantiornithes, Ichthyornis, and this list isn't even complete.

If you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#48 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
Actually their's many problems with the evolution theory.Just to name one, their's not nearly enough transitional or intermediate life form fossils needed to suggest evolution has merit
Not true and don't lie.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#49 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
I'm referring to transitional fossils in one species turning into another species.Yes theirs many transitional fossils of changes within a species but of the species turning into other species.
No there are thousands of transitional fossils between species.
BTW species do not "turn" into other species. a species descends form its ancestral species.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#50 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Or maybe have what some blogs have and give you a fifteen minute window to use your edit function until your post is set in stone.
That would work. We all notice our mistakes 3.5 nanoseconds after hitting post reply anyway.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#51 Aug 22, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
How about they work on a GODDAMN EDITING FEATURE!!!!
AND a better search function to find back old posts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#52 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
AND a better search function to find back old posts.
YES! The search function is useless. Even Google is better at it.
douglas

Vancouver, Canada

#53 Aug 22, 2014
Their are many, many objections concerning evolution even a former evolutionist professor Gary Parker objects the theory of evolution.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#54 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
Their are many, many objections concerning evolution even a former evolutionist professor Gary Parker objects the theory of evolution.
In the first place, learn not to lie and secondly, don't tattle about things you have no understanding of.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#55 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
Their are many, many objections concerning evolution even a former evolutionist professor Gary Parker objects the theory of evolution.
You mean Gary Parker formerly of AiG? You do realize that he has yet to offer a single scientific objection to Evolutionary theory. All of his objections are based on his religious beliefs. I think he's with ICR now. Same problem. His objections are not based on science. If you know of any that are, please share.

That's one of your problems, you assume that just because someone is educated, like Gary, that he must be basing his objections on his education in the sciences. That's not true. For a short while the Discovery Institute was marketing a list of ... what they called ... 700 Doctoral Scientists who have issues with evolutionary theory. They even presented their list to the State School Board of Ohio claiming that it showed evolution as a 'theory in crisis'.

However since then they have changed the marketing of their list because it was found out that not only did many of the signatories NOT have doctoral degrees, but over 70% had nothing to do with biology and their objections were based on religious not scientific issues. There were other problems with the list, so much so that you hardly hear about it any more.

So instead of doing more ineffective name dropping, how about you list some of those scientific objections ... you might also include a reference to some valid scientific site that can support your scientific issue. Please don't use ICR (Institute for Creation Research) or AIG (Answers in Genesis) because they are ministries, not scientific organizations.
douglas

Vancouver, Canada

#56 Aug 22, 2014
More objections to the evolution theory.Leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself into highly complex living matter at least not without denying the essential difference between living and non-living things.Also the probability of life being generated by chance out of nonliving chemicals is a virtual impossibility.The objections I posted in this forum is just the tip of the ice berg-their's so much more evidence Against the theory of eolution!.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#57 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
More objections to the evolution theory.Leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself into highly complex living matter at least not without denying the essential difference between living and non-living things.Also the probability of life being generated by chance out of nonliving chemicals is a virtual impossibility.The objections I posted in this forum is just the tip of the ice berg-their's so much more evidence Against the theory of eolution!.
You keep making unsupported statements. Nothing you have said has any actual support against the theory of evolution. Maybe if you actually understand the theory it would help. You are now arguing Abiogenesis as an impossibility, where science has not made that conclusion. It's a religious bias, not a scientific one.

The probability argument is a foolish one. You cannot look at life today and make the claim that it would be too high a probability to have happened with out a deity's intervention. First of all you would have had to predict the outcome (modern life) before any life formed to be able to perform such a calculation. Obviously you did not.

Simple example, shuffle a standard deck of cards and deal them out face up. They come out in some order, right? What are the odds of that order? IF you predicted that order before the deal, the odds would be astronomical. But you didn't. By not predicting that order, the odds of them being in 'some' order was 100%. Life exists! The odds of life existing in it's current form: 100%. Basic stats, without any religion mumbo-jumbo to make it look like something challenging.

WIlliam Dembski has been trying this argument for years and it hasn't worked. Good luck!

You keep claiming other people are making actual, valid scientific objections, yet you cannot seem to remember any of them. Care to try again?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#58 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
More objections to the evolution theory.Leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself into highly complex living matter at least not without denying the essential difference between living and non-living things.Also the probability of life being generated by chance out of nonliving chemicals is a virtual impossibility.The objections I posted in this forum is just the tip of the ice berg-their's so much more evidence Against the theory of eolution!.
Life is not generated by chance.
Nobody ever said or claimed that.

As I said: DON'T LIE.
You are a liar and deceiver.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#59 Aug 22, 2014
douglas wrote:
Their are many, many objections concerning evolution even a former evolutionist professor Gary Parker objects the theory of evolution.
Gary who?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#60 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is not generated by chance.
Nobody ever said or claimed that.
As I said: DON'T LIE.
You are a liar and deceiver.
You don't believe in Chance?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#61 Aug 22, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making unsupported statements. Nothing you have said has any actual support against the theory of evolution. Maybe if you actually understand the theory it would help. You are now arguing Abiogenesis as an impossibility, where science has not made that conclusion. It's a religious bias, not a scientific one.
The probability argument is a foolish one. You cannot look at life today and make the claim that it would be too high a probability to have happened with out a deity's intervention. First of all you would have had to predict the outcome (modern life) before any life formed to be able to perform such a calculation. Obviously you did not.
Simple example, shuffle a standard deck of cards and deal them out face up. They come out in some order, right? What are the odds of that order? IF you predicted that order before the deal, the odds would be astronomical. But you didn't. By not predicting that order, the odds of them being in 'some' order was 100%. Life exists! The odds of life existing in it's current form: 100%. Basic stats, without any religion mumbo-jumbo to make it look like something challenging.
WIlliam Dembski has been trying this argument for years and it hasn't worked. Good luck!
You keep claiming other people are making actual, valid scientific objections, yet you cannot seem to remember any of them. Care to try again?
No, he wouldn't have to "predict" what current or future life would be like to determine odds of an accidental/random causal agent of the origin of life. That's not how probability theory works. Although, he would need evidence of "any" other life originating in the same way, from the same "type" of causal agent on another planet in another solar system , which, so far, is impossible.

"One" instance does not a probability make.

"Current form" is irrelevant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 23 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 916
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Blitzking 205,067
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Aura Mytha 43,237
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 151,484
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr It aint necessari... 18,571
Questions about first life 6 hr Upright Scientist 15
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 13 hr One way or another 16
More from around the web