It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#51886 Jan 14, 2011
truth teller wrote:
Observation that replicate itself and form a similiar pattern create credibility. Thus a observed action can determine if a observation has credibililty. For example (simplified) push a book off the table it falls down and the similiar action prevail you can make a valid conclusion. If the book floats into the air then the first conclusion is nullified. But if in fact book fall off the table onto the floor you have observed gravity in action. Is that simple enough?
I believe you have it! You are speaking of "observed effects" - or "observable actions" of an unobserved phenomena - in this case a falling book providing evidence for the Theory of Gravitation. This is good.

Now - let's extend this to the Theory of Human Evolution. The "observed effect" or "actions" of human evolution are the 25 different species of fossil hominids. Their pattern shows a change from ape-like to human-like over time. If these fossils fell into a different pattern - like your book floating in air - then human evolution could be nullified. But they don't - they fall into the exact pattern of change in which you would observe human evolution in action - just like your example of the book falling to show gravity in action. And each new fossil found falls into this pattern.

So you were right! The repeated observations of the actions/effects of human evolution - those homininid fossils - continue to fall into the same pattern predicted by evolutionary theory, thereby creating credibility.
KAB

United States

#51887 Jan 14, 2011
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
We are always looking at the evidence concerning evolution. One of the reasons, one of the many reasons, evolution is such a strongly held theory is because all things discovered since Darwin's day has supported evolutionary theory. Objections raised against evolution, particulary in recent years, have not been based on sceince but on religion; Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design are three examples.
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#51888 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
Wow. You have REALLY not been listening, have you?

Pick one, any one.

There have been MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS, of "things" which support evolution that have been found in the last 200 years or so.

It would be a LOT simpler to ask what supports the "alternative" (hint: the answer is NOTHING).

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#51889 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
How about the Paleontological fossil record?

If you don't like that one, how about centuries (yes, I mean centuries) of study of comparative anatomy?

If that one still bugs you, try Genetics?

If you prefer to range further from biology itself, how about physics and Radiological dating techniques?

How about Climatology and ice core samples?

Try Geology and Rock layering and formations?

How about Astronomy and the formation of the Earth?

WHat about Ecology and Environmental sciences?

We can always go back to Biology and hit on Biological diversity?

Hit a good Agricultural college and study up on animal and plant breeding programs.

Under each of these ... categories, for lack of a better term, there is details support that aligns itself well with evolutionary theory. It would take so little to cause evolution to collapse. The discovery of one rabbit into a dinosaur's stomach or a modern man's remains found in a geological level dating to several million years -- but in 150 years of looking, no one has found anything that conflicts with evolutionary science, not Sanford, Morris, Ham, or Holvind -- for all their bluster about it.

You haven't either, and you level of bluster certainly pales beside your heros.
Dogen3

Indianapolis, IN

#51890 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
The entire scientific fields of:
Biology
Archeology
Genetics
Anthropology
Paleontology
For starters.
You can also add in physics, chemistry, biochemistry, botany, virology, epidemiology,....
Oh, you said ONE thing. My mistake.
With one thing you can play the Mr. Magoo game and refuse to see the forest for the tree just in front of you.
No thanks, we have played before.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#51891 Jan 14, 2011
SsixtytwoS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks!
And I can't find your response to my previous question about DNA & visual representation - you said yes & no, and offered to educate me ... I'll take you up on that. Do you need me to find that post?(I can look harder for it ...)

Oh, I remember you asking the question but I had little time and figured someone else would jump on it. But if you can refresh me I will be glad to take a whack at it.

“Religion is Superstition”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#51892 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
How about the whole of the biological sciences?

How about all of science?

Maybe you could try and name one thing that supports 'goddidit'?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#51893 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
evolution.berkeley.edu

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#51894 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
Logic.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#51895 Jan 14, 2011
marksman11 wrote:
the Cambrian explosion proves that evolution does not have to occur over long periods of time as we've previously demanded. IT CAN HAPPEN SUDDENLY!!!
Except that this is not a claim made by scientists but a distortion on your part. The cambrian "explosion" took about 50 MILLION years. It is only explosive in that it is a striking feature within the slow forming strata.

And this is how it always is. Nothing of the real world supports your crazy view, so you pretend that science says something others than what it really does. This does not help your case, it only exposes the desperation of your position.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#51896 Jan 14, 2011
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>AND AGAIN, you weren't there, nor was the person who taught you this, THEY WEREN'T THERE EITHER!!
You said.....
<quoted text>
Yes they are.
You weren't at the creation of the earth, and neither were the folks who wrote genesis. But an 4.64 billion year old oblate spheroid earth is consistent with all the physical evidence, whereas a flat earth surrounded by magic waters and covered by an inverted dome to keep them out is not.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#51897 Jan 14, 2011
marksman11 wrote:
A fossil is evidence that something once existed, died, and left an image of itself. It doesn't show heritage...I can strow cards on a table, and if allowed to arrange them myself
A series of fossils, that progressively transform from one form to a related form to another related form over time, as measured by multiple overlapping means, DOES imply inheritance. And where genetic evidence is available, it conclusively confirms the correlation, allowing us to reliably carry it back into the distant past.

A book of bronze age myths does not imply historical fact.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Level 1

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#51898 Jan 14, 2011
marksman11 wrote:
Why is it that I have asked numorus atheists to give me one example of the humanist manifesto that they reject, and none, including you, have done so? Why can't you do that?
The Humanist fanifesto is indeed a statement of beliefs. Some are empirically provable (if anything is) and some are not. I reject the seventh "Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained." This is not an empirical truth but an asserting, an attempt to redefine religion in a way that is presumably more paletable to rationalists. All well and good, but most atheists define religion as "everything having to do with baseless belief in majic" and reject the concept out of hand.

I also reject the hourteenth, " that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."

I believe this to be nonsense, that neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism can be just, and that many of our modern American problems stem from the artificial and childish polarization between the two, rather than the common sense acceptance that a just society must be an alloy of both, and that arguing over where and when to set the balance it the perpetual and legitimate work of free men--in other words, not radical but minor adjustments are called for and not just now, but for all time.

“Religion is Superstition”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#51899 Jan 14, 2011
Is markie still (deliberately?) hung up on the Humanist Manifesto?

I wonder why he's suddenly focusing on that particular piece of irrelevance? Maybe to draw attention away from the epic failure that the rest of his non-argument is?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#51900 Jan 14, 2011
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Before we get to ALL let's try taking it ONE thing at a time.
What is one thing which supports evolution theory?
DNA (common ancestry)

Ring species (speciation)

The fact that we've observed evolution occurring (direct observation)

The fact that not all members of a population reproduce successfully creating viable offspring that reproduce (natural selection)

The fact that not all members of a population produce the same number of viable offspring that reproduce (natural selection)

The fossil record (nested hierarchy)

There's 6 things right there. Do you need more?
KAB

Henderson, NC

#51901 Jan 14, 2011
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have nothing to worry about, other than the fact that no theory is ever proved conclusively.
Pretty much all study in genetics, biology, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, etc. in some way to a greater or lesser extent involves the Theory of Evolution. Any new discovery is measured against current knowledge. In the 150 years since Darwin the Theory is constantly being looked at, questioned, validated by new research and new evidence.
Someone has previously noted that Pythagoras had a theory that the earth was spherical. Well, you know the rest, proven conclusively.

For all you agenda lovers out there, I'm here to be part of the process referred to above. I'll admit that I have a heavy preference for the questioning part. That applies to religion and the Bible as well. What I have found so far is that the Bible has very little in common with nearly all of religion, especially that which purports to represent it. If you want to come down hard on religion you're going to have to get in line behind God (God as represented in the Bible that is).
truth teller

South Bethlehem, NY

#51902 Jan 14, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. This kind of theory, by the way:
In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.(wiki)
Not the "just a theory" type of theory that you creationists seem to think it is.
<quoted text>
They're all dead. Along with almost every other species that's ever existed on Earth. Why is this so confusing for you? Where are the ancestors of elephants? Where are the ancestors of ants? Where are the ancestors of dogs? Where are the ancestors of cows? They're all dead. Do you have even the first clue how many species are alive now compared to how many there have been over the last billion years or so? We currently have fewer than 1% of all the species that have ever been. So, pretty much any current organism's ancient ancestors are long gone. That's the circle of life, pal. You don't get to redefine reality to suit your religious bias or your scientific ignorance. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can stop being a flaming dipshit.
If they all died the skeletons, remains would still be on earth unless they floated into space. I am asking for cold hard evidence so a analysis can be determined apon the prepondence of the evidence. That is called the scientific method or do you need a definition as well? Evolution which I used to embrace lacked the evidence to make an honest evaluation. I want to see that scientific evidence and not speculate and look at the reality of those supposed ancestors. That you can't seem to produce and your methodology is to mocking me and sxhort yourself to name calling to cover up for your lack of evidence. That is not SCIENCE but faith. PAL
truth teller

South Bethlehem, NY

#51903 Jan 14, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
If you are drooling over the imminent overthrow of the 'Theory of Cockamamie Fundie Logic' have at it. You certainly won't find anyone standing in your way.
Yes it does it's called innovation and intergration or don't you understand your own belief system.
truth teller

South Bethlehem, NY

#51904 Jan 14, 2011
Christopher Pearsoll wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is showing.
A theory is the explanation for a set of phenomenon and/or pieces of evidence.
Not all organisms are preserved as fossils. The odds of us finding the mother species for the independent chimpanzee/bonobo lineage and the human lineage is remote in the extreme. Fortunately, it is also unnecessary for us to find this species. We have more than enough fossils from near kin to the direct line of species from the common ancestor to us. Plus, we have other lines of evidence that corroborate.
And what do you have to back up your flimsy alternative of 'goddidit'?
Oh yeah, that's right... NOTHING.
That's is because you don't have any proof so you result to immmature and childish name calling. It shows how unscientific and bankrupt evolution is. The evolutionist should then say we don't know who did it or we then believe it happened millions of years ago and we think we found the evidence. That's sounds like guessing or faith in evolution.
KAB

Henderson, NC

#51905 Jan 14, 2011
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I find this to be amusing:
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said.....
Put yourself in the listener's place at the time. The speech was perceived as coming from where? Would you deny a writer his choice of viewpoint? If you had written the account, I'm sure you would appreciate the freedom to chose your perspective. Someone recently noted the principle that you may wish that things were different, but that doesn't negate or invalidate the way they are, or more generally, other possibilities.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Blitzking 149,418
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 48 min emrenil 176,848
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 3 hr Iconoclast 1 625
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr One way or another 16,711
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 8 hr Denisova 12
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 18 hr Denisova 1,345
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 18 hr Denisova 6
More from around the web