Jump to content


Why Evolution Is Clear To Me


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
131 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 June 2009 - 02:39 PM

The most interesting feature of most creationist posts is the way in which they mis-represent evolution.


One cannot mis-represent something that has not been proven.

In this case 'what it was trying to change into' suggests the Lamarkian idea that a species or a lineage changes because it wants to change or because it is trying to become better in some way.
If, as you claim, you really have studied evolution, then you must know that this is contrary to Darwin's theory and to our current understanding.
Can you explain why you misrepresent evolution in this way - or is it that it is only by setting up a straw man caricature of evolution that you can convince your disciples that evolution is obviously false?

View Post


You answer this the way you do because you really don't know, do you?

Because all I see here is a type of political spin, where you dodge the question with reason instead of actually answering what was actually asked. Your cover for evolution is good. But truth does not need such covers.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 28 June 2009 - 04:46 PM

One cannot mis-represent something that has not been proven.

View Post


But that won’t stop them from trying. The minute they stop running, is the second they have to start facing the truth. Then where would that leave them?

#43 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:08 PM

Original Poster's reply to all replies:

I read through all the replies and there were so many things I wanted to reply to, so much I wanted to say... but in my head, I could foresee the next likely response and then my response to that, etc.. it just feels so difficult and almost futile to argue about this stuff with people who are equally dedicated to what they already believe (not that either one of us is completely right over another person).

I think the most important thing to say here is that what you have already chosen to believe about certain things determines how you will interpret new information that goes against it. People will ALWAYS be biased no matter what mindset they have. So of course the creationist people who believe the bible literally and do not want to believe in any aspect of how evolution works will respond with seemingly convincing counter arguments and reasons why the believe what they do. Same goes for evolutionists, and everyone in between.

When you enter in to a belief system such as one based on the Bible, you have to realize that the Bible is something to be taken by faith. Most of these theological Doctrines and the other ranges of unconventional ideologies are birthed out of belief systems of people who suppliment their faith with logic and reason. These people are usually the stronger willed ones who tend to over think and over interpret what they read and then begin to turn it into a system of "faith science." It is basically the evolution of a belief system into something more than it was previously.

Most of the stuff that supposedly happened in the Bible is supernatural stuff, which is especially not testable. Not only are these supposed events untestable, but the texts of the Bible are highly open for interpretation which is obvious if you look at all the various sects of Christianity.

Science, however, is about learning based on the testable and observable things -- and yes I know that people will immediately say that you can not observe evolution in progress millions of years ago, etc, but basically everything around us is raw information of things that have happened which can tell us a lot about the way things happen in our environment if properly analyzed.

My point is that from an unbiased perspective (as much as humanly possible) nothing is truly 100% absolutely provable. The most extreme example of this is that we can not even prove we are existing right now because there is no 100% absolute thing to reference ourselves and everything to. Maybe that is a bit beyond my point though.

What I am really trying to say here is that to a completely neutral perspective, no faith based systems or religions can be relied upon as fully truth because you as an individual do not really know for sure what is correct and what is incorrect within that system since it is ultimately faith based. You can get closer to a realistic perception of reality if you simplify your thinking and begin anew by learning to properly judge things and think for yourself. There are all sorts of people in every kind of mindset -- both creationism and evolutionism -- who are "wacked out" to all kinds of different degrees, but their behavior should not be the determinate value that you use to validate or invalidate their belief system.

By it's own defintino, the pure scientific method is the most logical way to begin assessing our world and understanding what is going on. Yes, humans are all imperfect beings (because we begin with no knowledge and understanding of the world we have come into) and we are the ones who can mess up the scientific method, but it is still the most logical and reasonable route for discerning what is going on as far as the human mind is concerned.

The researchers in all fields of science use the scientific method explicitly and draw conclusions from their studies over hundreds of years and the core of our good knowledge is tested and repeatedly tested and purified so as to best depict what is really going on in our reality. Anything else that is thrown at the science community that can not be tested or does not hold water is falsified or at least denied based on its own gross ambiguity; ie Creationism, Meta-physics, voodoo, etc -- basically areas that can not be tested or have yet to be due to current limits of science.

#44 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:16 PM

Original Poster's reply to all replies:

I read through all the replies and there were so many things I wanted to reply to, so much I wanted to say... but in my head, I could foresee the next likely response and then my response to that, etc.. it just feels so difficult and almost futile to argue about this stuff with people who are equally dedicated to what they already believe (not that either one of us is completely right over another person).

I think the most important thing to say here is that what you have already chosen to believe about certain things, determines how you will interpret new information that goes against it. People will ALWAYS be biased no matter what mindset they have. So of course the creationist people who believe the bible literally and do not want to believe in any aspect of how evolution works will respond with seemingly convincing counter arguments and reasons why the believe what they do. Same goes for evolutionists, and everyone in between.

When you enter in to a belief system such as one based on the Bible, you have to realize that the Bible is something to be taken by faith.  Most of these theological Doctrines and the other ranges of unconventional ideologies are birthed out of belief systems of people who suppliment their faith with logic and reason. These people are usually the stronger willed ones who tend to over think and over interpret what they read and then begin to turn it into a system of "faith science." It is basically the evolution of a belief system into something more than it was previously.

Most of the stuff that supposedly happened in the Bible is supernatural stuff, which is especially not testable. Not only are these supposed events untestable, but the texts of the Bible are highly open for interpretation which is obvious if you look at all the various sects of Christianity.

Science, however, is about learning based on the testable and observable things -- and yes I know that people will immediately say that you can not observe evolution in progress millions of years ago, etc, but basically everything around us is raw information of things that have happened which can tell us a lot about the way things happen in our environment if properly analyzed.

My point is that from an unbiased perspective (as much as humanly possible) nothing is truly 100% absolutely provable. The most extreme example of this is that we can not even prove we are existing right now because there is no 100% absolute thing to reference ourselves and everything to. Maybe that is a bit beyond my point though.

What I am really trying to say here is that to a completely neutral perspective, no faith based systems or religions can be relied upon as fully truth because you as an individual do not really know for sure what is correct and what is incorrect within that system since it is ultimately faith based. You can get closer to a realistic perception of reality if you simplify your thinking and begin anew by learning to properly judge things and think for yourself. There are all sorts of people in every kind of mindset -- both creationism and evolutionism -- who are "wacked out" to all kinds of different degrees, but their behavior should not be the determinate value that you use to validate or invalidate their belief system.

By it's own defintino, the pure scientific method is the most logical way to begin assessing our world and understanding what is going on. Yes, humans are all imperfect beings (because we begin with no knowledge and understanding of the world we have come into) and we are the ones who can mess up the scientific method, but it is still the most logical and reasonable route for discerning what is going on as far as the human mind is concerned.

The researchers in all fields of science use the scientific method explicitly and draw conclusions from their studies over hundreds of years and the core of our good knowledge is tested and repeatedly tested and purified so as to best depict what is really going on in our reality. Anything else that is thrown at the science community that can not be tested or does not hold water is falsified or at least denied based on its own gross ambiguity; ie Creationism, Meta-physics, voodoo, etc -- basically areas that can not be tested or have yet to be due to current limits of science.

View Post


Sigh, dave... your information is not new. It's about as beat to death as my floor matts.

#45 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:23 PM

Sigh, dave... your information is not new.  It's about as beat to death as my floor matts.

View Post


Then you must realize that what I said is correct and that the creationism side of this is not based on science and therefore it is less reliable as truth, regardless of the validity of the ToE.

#46 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:23 PM

"If we confound 'Variation' or 'Natural Selection' with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes or immeasurably exaggerate their influence" (Lyell, The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks on Theories on the Origin of Species by Variation, page 469, London, 1863)


Down, June 17th [1860].  One word more upon the Deification1 of Natural Selection: attributing so much weight to it does not exclude still more general laws, i.e. the ordering of the whole universe. I have said that Natural Selection is to the structure of organised beings what the human architect is to a building. The very existence of the human architect shows the existence of more general laws; but no one, in giving credit for a building to the human architect, thinks it necessary to refer to the laws by which man has appeared.


Page 154, Letter 105, found here. The second is from the text; the first from the footnote.

No matter what is attributed to an entity, of course, it couldn't be a god unless its followers and supporters admit to worship, right? Wrong.

#47 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:28 PM

Then you must realize that what I said is correct and that the creationism side of this is not based on science and therefore it is less reliable as truth, regardless of the validity of the ToE.

View Post


Wrong, Dave, what you said is incorrect because the Creationist side is based on truth, and therefore is more reliable as truth, because it is truth.

Creationism, there is evidence for things within the Bible, and all of it that you will never refute. That's a promise, because the truth is the truth.

#48 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:39 PM


I was'nt aware that all masupials in Austrailia evolved a wolf-like skull because of similar enviromental adaptations.Thats a new one.

The Thylacine and Timber Wolf live on completely different continents and live in completely different climates,feeding upon completely different prey.

Surely,your also aware that they do not even share the same common ancestor.The Thylacine is more closely related to a Possum than a Dog.

View Post


Oh sorry for not being an expert, but you can probably also add that not only similar environments can cause convergent evolution, so can similar ecosystems.

I know next to nothing about the Thylacine and the Timber Wolf, but let me guess what they have in common: same placement in the food chain, same preference for prey, both probably also scavenge.

What I don't get is why is this such a big shock for you? If similar pressures in selection are present, why wouldn't you see similar adaptations take place?

View Post


Hi Mandel,

I thought evolution was random variation and by its very nature it produces diversity. Similar environment does not limit genetic variations. Didn't Gould believe if you rewound the clock and started over you would get different results?

I don't see how a random process could produce the same result? Ironically , if the process produces the same result it would no longer be random: It would be a pattern. I would expect convergence with a designer: Similar structures are designed by the Creator to meet similar needs. For example, the eyes of squids and humans are totally distinct from one another right from their first appearance in the fossil record."

Bruce

#49 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:07 PM

I thought evolution was random variation and by its very nature it produces diversity...
I don't see how a random process could produce the same result?  Ironically , if the process produces the same result it would no longer be random: It would be a pattern.

View Post


As we've said before Bruce, evolution is not random. I'd be careful here, you're getting dangerously close to understanding <_<

Regards,

Arch.

#50 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:40 AM

Yeah Bruce,the random mutation godess makes sure mutations are non-random and only beneficial,even at opposite sides of the planet. <_<

#51 mandel

mandel

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denmark

Posted 29 June 2009 - 05:19 AM

It is absolutely a serious question. So my next question is: can you seriously answer it?

View Post


You asked what was doing the selection. The answer to that is the environment, aka. natural selection.


One cannot mis-represent something that has not been proven.


What??? What the theory says is independent on it being proven or not, and you can misrepresent what is says. Even if the theory of evolution had not been proven you could still easily misrepresent what the theory says. Like you are misrepresenting the story told about Harry Potter by saying that he was a girl, even though the story is fiction.

I thought evolution was random variation and by its very nature it produces diversity. Similar environment does not limit genetic variations.  Didn't Gould believe if you rewound the clock and started over you would get different results?

I don't see how a random process could produce the same result?  Ironically , if the process produces the same result it would no longer be random: It would be a pattern. I would expect convergence with a designer: Similar structures are designed by the Creator to meet similar needs. For example, the eyes of squids and humans are totally distinct from one another right from their first appearance in the fossil record."

Bruce

View Post


The variations of individuals within the populations at a given time is random. Which of these individuals get to produce offspring is not random. So while there is a random part of evolution, the direction it takes is not.

#52 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 29 June 2009 - 08:20 AM

As we've said before Bruce, evolution is not random. I'd be careful here, you're getting dangerously close to understanding :(

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

Would you unpack that for me please. TIA (Thanks in advance)

Bruce

#53 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 29 June 2009 - 08:51 AM

What??? What the theory says is independent on it being proven or not, and you can misrepresent what is says. Even if the theory of evolution had not been proven you could still easily misrepresent what the theory says. Like you are misrepresenting the story told about Harry Potter by saying that he was a girl, even though the story is fiction.
The variations of individuals within the populations at a given time is random. Which of these individuals get to produce offspring is not random. So while there is a random part of evolution, the direction it takes is not.

View Post


Hi Mandel,

Interesting, it seams you believe that evolutions results are predictable based on environment conditions. If this is true, we could make predictions on what evolution will produce in the future. That would be very cool. Something else that would be cool is that we could recreate the extinct Tasmanian wolf. All we need to do is put some lesser evolved animals in the right environment and evolution will bring back an extinct animal. What do you think? Is that possible?

Bruce

#54 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:02 AM

I thought evolution was random variation and by its very nature it produces diversity. Similar environment does not limit genetic variations.  Didn't Gould believe if you rewound the clock and started over you would get different results?

I don't see how a random process could produce the same result? Ironically , if the process produces the same result it would no longer be random: It would be a pattern. I would expect convergence with a designer: Similar structures are designed by the Creator to meet similar needs. For example, the eyes of squids and humans are totally distinct from one another right from their first appearance in the fossil record."

This is another example of a creationist post in which they show clearly that they do not understand the TOE.
Mutations and genetic drift are random effects. In both cases, some of the ancestral population continues without change and therefore the total diversity has increased.

However, that is only part of the TOE. The second part, which you ignored, is the effect of natural selection on this diversity.
Natural selection and the environment in which the selection occurs determine which phenotypes are favored and which are disfavored.
Similar environments favor similar phenotypes and therefore if the appropriate mutations occur in both populations, then the result will be convergent evolution.

It is important to realize that the DNA sequences could be significantly different even if the phenotypes appear very similar.

#55 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 29 June 2009 - 11:00 AM

This is another example of a creationist post in which they show clearly that they do not understand the TOE.
Mutations and genetic drift are random effects.  In both cases, some of the ancestral population continues without change and therefore the total diversity has increased.

However, that is only part of the TOE.  The second part, which you ignored, is the effect of natural selection on this diversity. 
Natural selection and the environment in which the selection occurs determine which phenotypes are favored and which are disfavored.
Similar environments favor similar phenotypes and therefore if the appropriate mutations occur in both populations, then the result will be convergent evolution.

It is important to realize that the DNA sequences could be significantly different even if the phenotypes appear very similar.

View Post


Keith,

WOW you know how to twist words and create strawman.

Convergent Evolution is all hocus pocus and mirrors. TOE does not predict similar results from a similar environment. If you break the morphologies down and sequence them the whole hypothesis is ludicrous. Convergent evolution is after the fact analysis: If homology can't justify similarities they call it convergent evolution. Presto evolution has all the answers. No proof is needed just a good story. This is an example of:

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Now you understand why nothing in biology makes sense except in the “light” of evolution. By stating at the outset that “whatever happens, evolution did it,” evolution can’t be falsified. It’s a completely vacuous theory that is true by definition. It explains opposite things. It can’t possibly be wrong, if you can mold enough skulls full of mush to accept the premise. The only hard part is making up the just-so story to explain the de jure fact. We think people should go for de facto facts.



#56 mandel

mandel

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denmark

Posted 29 June 2009 - 11:52 AM

Hi Mandel,

Interesting, it seams you believe that evolutions results are predictable based on environment conditions. If this is true,  we could make predictions on what evolution will produce in the future.  That would be very cool. Something else that would be cool is that we could recreate the extinct Tasmanian wolf.  All we need to do is put some lesser evolved animals in the right environment and evolution will bring back an extinct animal. What do you think?  Is that possible?

Bruce

View Post


No. Not random does not mean 'completely deterministic'.

#57 mandel

mandel

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denmark

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:12 PM

Nice quote Bruce V, maybe math has got the same problems since it explains both negative and positive?

#58 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 June 2009 - 01:39 PM

Convergent Evolution is all hocus pocus and mirrors.  TOE does not predict similar results from a similar environment. If you break the morphologies down and sequence them the whole hypothesis is ludicrous.  Convergent evolution is after the fact analysis:  If homology can't justify similarities they call it convergent evolution. Presto evolution has all the answers. No proof is needed just a good story.  This is an example of:

View Post

True, but understated. "Convergent evolution" is simply evospeak for failed "homology". It is a total farce, an ad hoc propaganda tool; its only relationship to science is one of direct philosophical opposition. Coming up with a label to put on failed predictions and pretending they're not failed predictions is behaviour consistent with what goal?

#59 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:42 PM

WOW you know how to twist words and create strawman. 

I have learned a lot from reading creationist misrepresentations.

Convergent Evolution is all hocus pocus and mirrors.  TOE does not predict similar results from a similar environment. If you break the morphologies down and sequence them the whole hypothesis is ludicrous.  Convergent evolution is after the fact analysis:  If homology can't justify similarities they call it convergent evolution. Presto evolution has all the answers. No proof is needed just a good story. ...............

What do you mean by, ' break the morphologies down and sequence them the whole hypothesis is ludicrous.'. How do you sequence a morphology?
Even if you could, would it mean anything or give any insight?

Think of it this way. Mutation is a random change to genes and control sequences. Natural selection acts on phenotypes and not genes. The same phenotype can be preferred in 2 different environments, and achieved with different genotypes.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:50 PM

Mutation is a random change to genes and control sequences.  Natural selection acts on phenotypes and not genes.  The same phenotype can be preferred in 2 different environments, and achieved with different genotypes.

View Post

Can you acknowledge that this has nothing to do with understanding a mechanism but it's simply asserted because the evolution paradigm requires an answer that fits the preconceived grand origin tale?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users