Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You still haven't answered my question James.
What you've presented are assumptions, with a fixed premise, namely "gigantic changes DO occurr".

No. As I explained to you in my previous posts, I have helpfully linked you to an example of evolution that is amply verified by evidence. There is no assumption in "gigantic changes do occur", because there is evidence that gigantic changes have occurred. I gave you some. That you choose to ignore the evidence that is presented to you doesn't put you in a particularly good light.

There's no way you could have observed the said transformation, so it remains theoretical at best.

Science is a process of inference from evidence. Direct observation is seldom a requirement. Nobody can ever hope to directly observe an electron, for example. Would you like to argue that therefore electrons remain theoretical at best? What about a statement like "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global warming"? Can we see carbon dioxide? Can we directly see that warming happening? Is this statement "theoretical at best", then?

According to your argument, every theory in science is theoretical at best. Gravity can never be observed, so it is theoretical at best.

And what of Napoleon? Nobody alive today can ever observe Napoleon, or has ever observed him. So, is Napoleon Bonaparte theoretical at best?

Are you starting to see the flaw in your argument here? It's a biggy.

What I want from you is something that compliments the assertion "we have observed....".
No talk, just show. Or explain why you can't show.

I already showed you a very nice cladogram of whale evolution which summarises the observations nicely.

[Jan Ardena]

I already showed you a very nice cladogram of whale evolution which summarises the observations nicely.

You showed cartoon pictures. Period.

Unless you can show actual evidence, it is a fairy tale.



jan.

[gmilam]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

[spidergoat]

Not according to the evidence uncovered in ''Forbidden Archeology''.


jan.

A work of fiction that no reputable academic takes seriously.

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Science is a process of inference from evidence. Direct observation is seldom a requirement.

So what you're saying is that it's never, ever, been observed.
Why can't you just admit it?

jan.

[spidergoat]

It's been observed in the fossils. Of course evolution works by gradual change. No one is going to see the type of physical changes you require for proof in one lifetime, or even in a thousand lifetimes. But many of these processes have been captured as fossils. We can observe evolution happen in nature that is the same process. Have you ever seen your fingernails grow? No, you only infer they grow because sometimes you notice they are longer than they used to be.

[Jan Ardena]

A work of fiction that no reputable academic takes seriously.

So you're saying every single thing in that book is untrue?

Am I correct in that thinking?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

It's been observed in the fossils. Of course evolution works by gradual change. No one is going to see the type of physical changes you require for proof in one lifetime, or even in a thousand lifetimes. But many of these processes have been captured as fossils. We can observe evolution happen in nature that is the same process. Have you ever seen your fingernails grow? No, you only infer they grow because sometimes you notice they are longer than they used to be.

So when peiople say we have observed evolution, they're not refering to to the contravertial goo to man notion? Is that correct?

jan.

[spidergoat]

So you're saying every single thing in that book is untrue?

Am I correct in that thinking?

jan.

It's Hindu Creationist propaganda. It's possible that he talks about objects which are real, but his interpretations are wrong.

[spidergoat]

So when peiople say we have observed evolution, they're not refering to to the contravertial goo to man notion? Is that correct?

jan.

If you include observing the fossil evidence, then yes they have observed samples from every era, from pond scum to mankind. If you limit your notion of observation to living creatures, then it's unreasonable to demand observation of something that took 4 billion years to happen.

[Balerion]

Not according to the evidence uncovered in ''Forbidden Archeology''.


jan.

Interesting. What evidence might that be?

[Jan Ardena]

It's Hindu Creationist propaganda. It's possible that he talks about objects which are real, but his interpretations are wrong.

So what do you mean by a ''work of fiction''?

What was the source of his interpretation?

jan.

[GeoffP]

Geoff,

..the aspect of darwinian evolution anybody is concerned with is the idea
that one kind of creature transforms into a completely different kind of creature.

Now if you can show that without fancy talk, then you have a point.

Can you show me anything that shows this fantastic notion, that doesn't rely
on having to believe it is so because scientists say so?


jan.

Sure.

http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch100.pdf

http://nd.edu/~mpfrende/PDFs/Simon_e...Hered_2011.pdf

Major changes in Daphnia life-history in organisms genetically predisposed to major changes via environment. Environment changes permanently, followed by silencing of the mutations that cause the susceptibility, radically different organism. Think about how little a difference is actually required to make a species; squirrels, canids and cats don't look too different within each group but don't interbreed at all, or operate with behavioural barriers to that interbreeding. Here's another good paper on rapidly evolving lizards:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

Pretty major dietary shift there.

[GeoffP]

James R,



So what you're saying is that it's never, ever, been observed.
Why can't you just admit it?

jan.

Well sure. And cattle have never been improved for milk output either, nor sheep for wool production. No one sat there and watched it happen without interruption over the last millenium, so it must not have occurred.

[Jan Ardena]

Interesting. What evidence might that be?

The evidence that shows modern human remains and artifax that show modern humans have been around considerably longer than the current understanding suggests.

And the skull-duggery, that attempts to suppress those findings.
It's very interesting.

jan.

[GeoffP]

FFS, SG, will you take that damn avatar off?

[GeoffP]

The evidence that shows modern human remains and artifax that show modern humans have been around considerably longer than the current understanding suggests.

And the skull-duggery, that attempts to suppress those findings.
It's very interesting.

jan.

I reiterate for him: and what evidence might that be? Where is it?

[spidergoat]

The evidence that shows modern human remains and artifax that show modern humans have been around considerably longer than the current understanding suggests.

And the skull-duggery, that attempts to suppress those findings.
It's very interesting.

jan.

It's also bullshit.

[Jan Ardena]

It's also bullshit.

Why?

jan.

[spidergoat]

He's self published for one thing, no peer reviewed journals to burst his bubble of creationist nonsense. He fails to acknowledge modern dating techniques and the failures of past researchers. There are numerous sites that debunk this crazy book.