Denial of evolution II

To Saquist;

After reading posts 83 & 131 the Baron said (in Post 174):

This shows that when presented with the facts of my two posts, the Baron is intelligent enough to accept that in some cases evolution of a new species, even mammals, has occurred.

But the Baron is a tough old bird and does not yield ground without a fight so he correctly notes that for most cases we have no hard proof that the various species of creatures we see were not made just made by God or some other process. I actually think that the latter is the case IF “selection by the environment” does not include sexual preference (attractiveness to potential mates), but Darwin did include sexual selection in his theory. (Those who have never read what he wrote often ignorantly think “selection” relates to survival instead of reproductive probability / ability.) In birds especially this factor has often overwhelmed the development of features that aid survival and given some birds great handicaps, even in flying. Have you ever seen a peacock fly? Even chickens do it better and they have been handicapped by man’s selection for preferred flesh / rapid growth, etc. (E.g. Tiny wings over powered by huge breast they must lift.)

Anyway you say:

Have you considered the facts of post 83 and 131? If not please do so. If you have, did you shift your position a little to be that of the Baron? Or are you more pig-headed stubborn in your faith only supported POV?

That is hard to imagine, but possible. (Evolution works in mysterious and marvelous ways.) I.e. possibly evolution has evolved an individual variant even more pig-head stubborn than the Baron, and much more ignorant. The Baron is actually quite intelligent, but often hides it well, for reasons only he knows. I have no reason yet to say the same for you. Try to give me some. (At times you do give reason for hope in this regard, which I rarely see at all in the visitor's posts.)

Back to the thread:
I could only make counter arguments (not proofs, in post 172 &179) based on the improbability that all creatures would use the same 22 amino-acids and optical isomers. For example, dextrose sugar can be used but the mirror image molecule levose cannot be used as a food. (I think - perhaps that is glucose and its mirror image.) And Science's standard preference expressed by Occam's razor which is not nearly as persuasive and argument as the extreme bio-similarity of molecular processes across all living organisms. (For example, if independently created why only same 22 of approximately 10,000 possible amino acids?)

Since you always consider the facts, what is your considered opinion of the discussion of the between me and the Baron displayed in these posts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, no, no!! Billy, I don't believe I said that about even your little monkey thingies ...and certainly didn't concede that they evolved into a new species! With your little monkey thingies on that island, I'm going to need a lot more information than anything you gave us.

For example, if nothing else, you can't prove that some other similar mammal(s) didn't get onto that island without anyone knowing it. And as I recall, that was 8,000 yrs ago that it happened -- and I don't think there were any evolutionists around at that time to record everything that happened.

One of my biggest problems is the jump from specie to specie ...a fish turning into a gorilla! Yeah, yeah, I know ....your answer is always something lke, "....and it took millions and millions of years." Well, I ain't buyin' that ol' smoke screen. Either ya' got the data or ya' ain't.

You give me far too much credit, Billy. I've read about evolution, even studied it in some classes and just for fun, but it ain't answering all that y'all seem to think that it does. And I always take that as your "faith" in the theory of evolution ...much like the faith in ...ahh, some other things, perhaps?

I stopped my discussion, or more like my questioning, of evolution when y'all began to throw out the ideas/principles of DNA. I don't know shit about DNA, so you can throw in that smoke screen all you want, and it won't affect me or my position until DNA proves, conclusively, that a fish turned into a gorilla! ...and that you can show the progression, from animal to animal, all the way from fish to gorilla. I just don't think that's happened yet, so....?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I take it you are suggesting, as an alternative to the preá evolving from the similar but larger little animals (Santa Catalina Guinea Pigs, SCGP of the bigger island. - See photo of SCPGs in prior post with the map) that when enough ice had melted to isolate their island, the preá got on the island from somewhere else. - Is that a correct understanding of your alternative? If so:

(1) How did they get there (If they can swim, it is only for short distances, certainly not the 8km that separates the big and little islands.)

(2) If they (the already unique preá) came from the big island, why are there not thousands of them still there? There is no doubt that they are a separate species now, and by your postulated alternative (The preá were just like they are now 8000 years ago.) they would be a separate species back then also. - I.e. the preá did not disappear from the big island by inter breading with the SCGPs.

(3) If God just put them ONLY on their little island he probably did it only 100 or less years ago as it is very remarkable that a population of 42 or less could survive even that long, much less the 8000 years that seems to be the case in the accepted POV. - A violation of prior beliefs about such small inbreeding populations. (But as noted earlier, all the preá have same DNA by simple paternity testing techniques so inbreeding is not fatal to them, but the only way they reproduce.) Perhaps God is dropping new species down ever few years somewhere on Earth - a make work program for jungle explorers?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again perfect proof is impossible: not all doubt can be removed from anything. For example, you cannot even prove you have a body, much less that there is an Earth, other people, etc. but one does accept the most probable explanation which is logically consistent with observations. You cannot demand that there be a witness and his handed down report for ancient events. Even if these exist, you still need to subject them to plausibility tests. For example, I do not accept that Johan emerged for the whale days later unhurt, or that the sun stood still in the sky for the battle to continue, or that Methuselah lived 900 years before dying.

Thus the alternative that the preá evolved from the closely related but separate species of SCGPs due to their extreme stress of living on the edge of extinction for 8000 years, with no predators to remove slightly advantages variants, which could easily become dominate in the tiny population (initially only about 20 but now about 40 animals of half the size) due to the limited food supply making the preá always be near starvation is accepted as fact because is:

(1) Consistent with theory and many other known facts; and,
(2) Does not require postulating anything for which there are no supporting facts or even a scientifically testable theory - only dogma in various mutually contradictory "holy books."

But I do agree that nothing but your thoughts, not even that you have a body, can be absolutely proven to even exist. Your understand will not get very far if you demand this unavailalbe absolute certainty proof of more than "cogito ero sum." At least not any farther than Bishop Berkeley got 300 or so years ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Saquist & Baron Max-
While the theory of evolution may have problems with it; alternative theories offer little predictive power.

The loving god presented in religion, that also happens to be a batshit insane psychopath, is totally incompatible with logic, let alone the empirical evidence we've gathered on reality in the past 4,000 years.

That is to say, until you can come up with a better alternative than evolution, saying "evolutionary biologists haven't worked out X; therefore our God is responsible," is an asinine way to go about it. It is also bad logic and bad science, since the lack of conclusive evidence for one thing doesn't mean some omniscient super nice guy who is invisible and everywhere yet doesn't exist in any measurable way is responsible for the observed phenomena.

 

Roman,
I sense you're trying to "call me out".
Your comments here were inflamatory. You related all religions into one sterotypical heap despite their differences. And the free pass you hand to evolution by not requiring answers where there are questions enables lazy science.

Now this maybe just me...Because this is the science forum and not the religion forum, but it sounds like you took those very real problems with evolution and somehow made them personal.

1. I'm not intrested in a personal attack.
2. I want just the facts (It's how I learn)
3. I give no free passes to religion or science.

Do you want a discussion or a Death Match?
You remind me of James R. A sudden out of the blue comment when evolution is questioned directly. He was evasive. Now you're talking about religion instead of science. I sense evasiveness hear as well.


Note: The following post below only BEGINS to measure up to my standards of a real discussion. Addressing facts and sharing ideas. (What this forum is supposed to be about) If anyone else wants a grudge match I'll gladly point them in your direction.

Preface:
Quite a bit of information here, but all but the latter is well within my grasp. I'm in engineering, not biology.

Firstly, I do not know you. I do not know your standards and I do not feel any obligation to meet them. I need only the facts. Minus the common scientific assumption you and Baron (mostly) did indeed do just that. The two of you had some tangents for the use of metaphor. I did not need them.

The presentation did nothing to change my perspective of evolution because it's a perspective I already had. In life there is a great posibility for varriation by natural selection and adaptation. That can include no variation aswell. From an engineering perspective this makes complete sense and it is exactly what I would expect to see in isolated life. Enviromental stimulie dictating change in genetics. Good information by the way.

It does cause me to ponder the isolated life of Japan and Great Brittan in the human species. Is the same pausible? Would the genetic errors that have been speculated about really cause such deformaties? Does isolation have the possibility of breeding somethings better because I'm thinking how many detrimental traits were dropped because of the isolation. How many remained. It would be an intresting comparison between the main land species and the island species.

 

What?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For someone who claims to address facts what makes you think life in Britain (I can't speak for Japan) was or is isolated?
The history of Britain is little but exchanges with the rest of Europe and the world.

 

I sense a certain lack of appreciation in that statement.
When I told you to "just walk away" I was just trying to save you some headache that's all.
I've had to delete more posts than I've let stand on this topic....why?
Because most people aren't looking for the answers that show there's truth on both sides of this issue.
They either want it all on one side or the other.
How many times does that happen in real life?
There is dogma and misunderstanding on both sides.

-I've agreed with the evolutionists and disagreed with fundamentalists that a process has been involved over millions of years to bring about life on the earth.

-I've agreed with the fundamentalists and disagreed with the evolutionists that not all life on earth can be explained with evolution.

Between man and the animals the process took a leap, not just another step on the "evolutionary ladder".
They can't explain it and even admit there is a "missing link", but won't fathom the thought of a supernatural force or "God" being the cause.

Until a person can look at both sides and put all the preconceptions and dogma aside with an open mind, they won't see anything new.
The ones that do will eventually just walk away.
Like I'm going to do....I'm guess I'm left taking my own advice.
Good luck to you.

TheVisitor

 

I thought the avatar was an eagle, it turns out to be a chicken.

 

Roman... from what I remember of you, that's pretty much all you've ever done.
Watch, pick your preferred clique, and then extend your tongue up that cliques arse as far as they'd permit, in the guise of offering support.
Apparently, you haven't changed much. You're a hanger on, and you always have been.

Ophilolite, it's fairly simple. You did. You spent two hours on that reply. You could have typed quite a few pages in that time, but I think it went more along the lines of a few quick trips to your book collection to check you spelled the names correctly, a short rest recovering from the crick in your back caused by reaching up onto that top shelf, and probably an hour or so typing, re-reading, erasing a few lines, re-typing them for effect, and finally proofreading the finished "product" so as not to miss any mistakes.

You put quite a lot of effort into it, laddie. Deny yourself hoarse, if you like.

For you, it’s about me. For some, it’s a show. For me, it’s a little of both.
Of course, I haven’t said very much at all about evolution itself. I presented a very simplified explanation of a few things (and even told you it was), at which point you came along to er… chastise me. "Deflate", was the word you used. With a joke so old that most of the youngsters around here wouldn't have ever heard and probably thought was yours.
As if I'm here for the same reasons you are.

I think you’ve been just waiting for the opportunity, haven’t you?
Just like James R with his “personal threats” PM to me a few nights ago when all I did was present a moral question to a guy who started a thread saying he’d answer anything.
I'm innocent. I swear it. I just asked a question, I was invited to.
And he never answered. James did, though.

Come see the violence inherent in the system!

(is he on your list of "sharp cookies"? *chuckle*)

Well, seeing as we’re quoting :
“I know as much as anyone”. To which I mentioned that you should probably qualify as “around here”, which you refused to acknowledge.
You said it. You even had the opportunity to take it back when I gave you an out, and you didn’t.

Your only option now is to say that seeing as no one has a comprehensive understanding of evolution, then of course you'd be perfectly justified in saying you know as much as anyone. It's a bit late now, though.
And we both know full well that you aren't the type to plot such a trap in advance.
I'm sure "they'll" believe you though. Got to watch that pride, man. It'll come kick your ass every time.

That evolutionary negative depends entirely upon your viewpoint.
It does appear to me that you didn't fully understand what you were reading in the first place.
...Ah, well. You know as much as anyone, who am I to argue? Screw evolution, it was only the stage upon which we're acting. I can't be bothered listening to you spout more names and paraphrase other people's opinions at me.

You aren't here to learn anything either... nor to have a "meaningful dialogue". You're here to impart your "wisdom" to the stupid.
You're arrogant, just like me. In fact, probably the reason you were so quick to jump on me is that what you saw is the part you'd really loathe about yourself, when you recognised it - only you're too much of a coward to be honest about it.

You seek to disguise it behind your feigned "polite-until-I'm-pushed" John Wayne style, appeals to authority, appeals to a majority (well, a supposedly "learned minority" of unnamed very sharp cookies, at any rate...), appeals to... well, actually you've committed more than a few logical fallacies in your discourses above. That was two, for starters, and I won't go into the probability of your prior knowledge of me, as evidenced by your discussions with these alleged sharp cookies, leading to a kind of de facto ad hominem as well.

Which leads me to :

I considered a polite *cough* here as a response, but I doubt you'd get the inference. Pretty much covered it before, anyway.
I like egocentrics. They're more honest than your type. Well, no. I don't like them, when their opinions differ significantly from mine.
It would be better to say I respect them more than I would you.

You're not delighted at all, you dishonest little man. You couldn't give a finches fart what I've read or haven't, unless you can use it to make yourself look really, you know, learned and stuff. Which you do, incidentally.... apart from the fact that everything you've said is merely the regurgitated opinions of the people who actually did the legwork. But don't worry. You'll always get away with that if you keep within your own sphere of influence.

Unless you have another reason as to why such an obviously (we'll ignore the self proclaimed part) learned man, such as yourself, would be slumming here?
You know, there are an awful lot of sports stars who never quite make it to the majors, because they far prefer being champions at lower grades, to being average at the top.

"Useful dialogue"?
From my point of view, you've been a blast. I mean seriously... do you think, if I wanted to learn anything at all regarding evolution, I'd come here to do it? From you?
I mean, I know you said you know as much as anyone, and all that, but I'd rather go direct to the source and have done.

I'm terribly sorry, in closing, to have said that I misunderstood what I was reading when I was a youngster. I suppose for you it may be inconceivable that someone might have read books before he was old enough to truly understand what he was reading, if you didn't do such a thing yourself. But I did... frequently. Hell, I read Ayn Rand when I was about 10 and thought she was The Shit. You know?
... well, actually, you probably don't. There wouldn't be too much in your book collection that wasn't either endorsed by the establishment or held up as a "modern classic" of alternative thought, I'd imagine - and some significant parts of it would be gathering dust by now. Pardon me if I'm wrong.
Actually, I probably am. Even if you didn't read them, I doubt you'd allow any part of your home to gather dust for long.

Now I'm off to get drunk and play poker. The poker pays for the bourbon, you see. It's fun.
Like this place. Like you.

 

Alternative? Why must I suggest or theorize anything? What's wrong with a good ol' fashioned "I don't know"? Surely you're not "one of those" who hold that if I can't come up with a plausible explanation, then the evolution theory MUST be true??? I don't know, Billy, and there's nothing wrong with not knowing something ....by the same token, there's nothing wrong with not accepting every hair-brained idea, either, just because it's suggested or theorized.

Well, I believe James was the one who suggested that the finches of the Galapagos Islands floated on rafts of sticks and debris. So, ...what's wrong with something like that? I don't have any proof, but neither does James on his floating-debris suggestion.

Again, you're asking me to make suggestions as to what happened. Billy, I don't know, but I'm suggesting that it's entirely possible that you and others don't know either! There are theories, but isn't that all they are ...just good guesses? If you and others had absolute proof, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

So why belief what you can't prove? Isn't that what atheists say about theists' beliefs in god? See? I think the theory of evolution is an interesting theory, and I think people should continue to study it. But if it ain't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you can't send anyone to the electric chair!

No, Billy, you're wrong. Nothing changes, one way or the other, if I don't accept evolution in it's entirety. Nothing changes! Why do people insist that others accept the theory? And worse, if they don't, then they're subjected to ridicule and hatred and threats of violence. What the fuck difference does it make to anyone or anything if I don't accept the theory in it's entirety?

Baron Max

 

The same ol' smoke-screen reply ...and it proves nothing now as it proved nothing then.

So if you have absolute proof in the form of DNA and fossils, why are we having this discussion? Do you have fossils in sequential progression from fish to gorilla, and the DNA in each proving the progression?

Well, my Dad wasn't a fish, James! I've agreed all along that minor variations in species have and do occur. But that's a far cry from a fish turning into a gorilla, don't you think? And your "millions and millions of years" answer don't prove shit about anything.

What's wrong with "I don't know"? Why must I have some explanation? Personally, I think there's already too much wild speculation in the world, why should I add to it?!

I don't know what happened millions and millions of years ago, but you don't either! Yet you cling desperately to evolution as if it actually changes something in your life ....and if I don't accept the theory, then your world is going to be fucked up beyond repair. It won't, James, believe me.

Baron Max

 

We are in basic agreement on that the believe that evolution is a fact or not does not change much. Hell, people went about their daily activities back when most thought the world was flat and the sun journeyed across that sky after rising and then set (presumably to travel back to the sun rise point deep below the flat Earth.)

I think we also agree that nothing can be known to even exist with certainly, even our own bodies. Thus it all comes down to a choice, which we seem to have made differently. I enjoy understanding how things work, how they all fit together inside a possibly false (if nothing actually exists) "web of knowledge." This web of knowledge is quite detailed and complex now and does predict the results of experiments prior to doing them. Thus, even though not able to prove any part of it is absolutely true about anything I accept it. With this web of knowledge, we can predict where total eclipses were visible 5,000 years ago. In fact to get it to agree with the ancient Chinese records of the city in which one was seen, one must used other parts of the web of knowledge related to conservation of angular momentum and fact moon is slowing moving away. It all ties together very well. The theory of evolution is also well tied into the web of knowledge, with no more doubt than the slowing of the Earth spin as the moon moves away.

You seem to want to accept nothing about the past if no one was there to observe and record it. - For example, I assume you do not accept that once West coast of Africa and East coast of S. America were joined. If you do accept that why not evolution also? There are many more completely independent facts (current observations) supporting evolution than continental drift. Both at the gross structural level of living organisms and at the molecular biology level (such as the use of only 22 amino acids among the thousand possible.)

I do not ridicule your restraint in acceptance - but find it strange you can accept anything as fact as nothing can be proved with certainty. The good Bishop Berkeley may have been correct - nothing exist but his spirit and the greater spirit that gave him his experiences (which caused him to assume there was a material world etc.) If there is anything you do accept as valid fact, how do you do that, when nothing material is certain to even exist?

 

Of course I'm calling you out.

I'll pose a simple question to you, since you seem to have your feelings hurt. If the theory of evolution is so problematic, what alternate theory are you suggesting biologists should labor under?

Wow. You must really like Dawkins.
I wish you were better at insults, though. Your goading is really weak.

While I agree with your sentiment, describing evolution as implausible and "hair-brained" really demonstrates how little knowledge you have of the huge amount of evidence supporting evolution. So many questions and problems can be explained with evolution. The alternative "we don't know, therefore everything is wrong" is extremely unhelpful. Imagine if our approach to everything was "we don't know, let's not bother." Nothing would happen.

The most important part of any theory, though, is that it makes predictions and gets results. And evolution, out of any other theory regarding origins, makes the most accurate predictions.

 

It doesn't matter to you.

This is how I know.

 

If it didn't matter, I wouldn't be asking.
I'm genuinely interested- if you want to engage in discussion on the merits of the theory of evolution, on a scientific level, start offering alternative hypotheses.

You're the only one here denying evolution with any intellectual honesty. I could call Baron Max out, but he's an idiot and a troll. Your endeavors are honest, if not misguided.

 

Romans, that is an illogical use of reason.

 

What makes the use of reason illogical?
And why do continue to evade answering my request?

Look; I'm not interested in debating with you designs of irreducible complexity whose origins hardworking molecular biologists will discover for you in the next decade. I don't want to niggle over gaps. I don't want to trifle with this system or that proton pump. Instead, I'd like to see you offer an alternative to the current paradigm of biology. Go on now, surely you must have one in mind.

 

There could be any number of motivations other than factual relevancy for your question.

As I've said. I do not believe you are open-minded enough to actually consider the facts. After all you haven't far. That's not a slight just my observation based on the fact that you as others default as a matter of rule (I can only presume conditioning) to attacking religion.

I have observed, it is the first and primary objective of individuals like yourself on this forum to attack religion where and when ever it manifest itself in any form and there has been more than enough evidence to support that theory. It is my theory that bias against religion has compromised the scientific community's objectivity.

Therefore I propose you are not really intrested in my observations or the facts or the opposition's position.