Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Where Is The Evidence For Evolutionist Assumptions?

Recommended Posts

 

Its difficult to provide a single peer reviewed article that deals with what your describing. This is because evolution is universally accepted by those in the know and has been for over a hundred years.

 

This doesn't make sense....

 

Firstly I didn't limit it to a single peer reviewed article, you can provide mutliple if you want. Pleading for special circumstances for evolution is not going to work dude wink.png If it is meant to be scientific then there needs to be evidence, actual evidence not based on assumptions, and where said evidence is supported by EXPERIMENT.

 

Secondly your second sentence doesn't support the first despite you claiming that it is the cause for your difficulty? How does evolution being universally accepted make it difficult for you 'to deliver the goods' in terms of evidence?

 

Wouldn't that be the opposite whereby if evolution is universally accepted then there would be lots of evidence for it, and thus you should have no difficulty in displaying some?.. Hmm

 

Additionally this implies an argument to authority, just because something is "universally accepted" doesn't make it right, nor can that claim be used in lieu of actual evidence.

 

 

 

I came accross a book by HG wells the other day called the "science of life". It was published in 1930 and described evolution as a fact.

 

Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occured within the evolution paradigm.

 

There are no "facts" in scientific theory.... Facts are absolute... Yet science is meant to change with new evidence, so to have "facts" in scientific theory would undermine the plasticity of science to incorporate new data, since the new data MUST be viewed under the assumption that "evolution is a fact" rather than being analysed on a basis of neutrality.

 

In other words it is demonstrating the a priori assumptions evolutionists make when they view new data.

 

 

 

 

This is before the molecular identity of evolution and inheritance was even known. So if we take it back to the basics, natural selection can be reduced to a few observations.

 

1) Organisms produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves

2) Offspring vary in their fitness, not all survive or reproduce.

3) The traits that increase fitness can be inherited.

4) Organisms always come from other organisms, vertically inheriting their genome.

 

Yes and?

 

Dig has asked some great questions concerning your four points, I ask that you respond to him :)

 

I would ask you to consider your use of the word "vertically" in 4) is it justified?

 

Also what traits are observed in 3) are they amenable to common descent or are they simply traits WITHIN the same organism?...

 

Do all 4 demonstrate that common descent is reality? How? Since all 4 can apply to organisms that exist within their limits and stay (relatively) the same... Simply assuming common descent from these 4 points doesn't make it true, although it does demonstrate the assumptions evolutionists make which is what I was asking about in the OP.

 

 

 

 

We now also know

 

1) Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptation occurs, as fitness is selected for over many successive generations.

 

So there arnt actually all that many assumptions involved in this.

 

And?

 

Selection occuring doesn't = common descent.. This is yet another assumption.

 

 

 

Pleading for special circumstances of creation is unwarranted and unncessary.

 

What was I pleading for Creation? I was discussing evolution and the assumptions being made in terms of their "evidence", so this is highly dishonest and I ask you to retract this claim.

 

 

Perhaps consider this statement, since you haven't said anything which relates to it, only that you find it difficult to deliver the evidence I ask for...

 

When one considers the evidence given for evolution people may think of DNA, fossils etc.. What people do not consider is the hidden assumption that is assuming similarities are indicative of ancestry.

 

So to put my case simply what is the evidence that supports assuming similarities in fossils demonstrates ancestry between them, I am choosing to focus fossils since they are used for deep time common descent.... Please note- discussions of DNA are invalid on this thread.

 

Tied into this is the convergent evolution contradiction where evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry, yet also realise that "convergent evolution" can occur whereby similarities form which have no relationship to ancestry.. Meaning that the assumption of similarities = ancestry is debunked by the evolutionists belief in convergence... (So we already know what the answer is wink.png Just hoping some evolutionists who read this can get their heads around it).

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=5833&page=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

hewy, on 04 May 2014 - 2:38 PM, said:

 

I came accross a book by HG wells the other day called the "science of life". It was published in 1930 and described evolution as a fact.

Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occured within the evolution paradigm.

 

Even the great C.S.Lewis was taken in by the evolutionary lie. (Though he did mention his doubts.) One must understand that the information we take for granted as easily accessible today, was impossible for people access at all. People literally had to "take their word for it" and those added letters to their titles, gave scientists an aire of superiority. As I said in the "Evolution Did It" thread, scientists have put greed over creed, and where has the money been for the last 100 years?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is true but difficult to justify in an evolutionary sense because they must not only survive but become more than they started out to be. Some must not only survive but advance to the next level of evolution.

 

Dig4gold,
i will just reply to this point if i may because i think it summaries your other points. This is one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution. I think you have a really dramatic kind of "black or white" model of evolution when all evolution actually is is things living, reproducing and dying.. It is the history of what has happened to life. The fact that evolution occurs is just a consequence of living things having genomes which change. Its not about things trying to become better adapted, species become adapted to their environment as a side-effect of reproducing (that is, the traits which further reproductive fitness, for whatever reason, are obviously those best suited to the present environment). There are no "levels" of evolution.

 

Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occurred within the evolution paradigm.

 

Gilbo, its quite an arrogant assertion to infer that people who understand science have been indoctrinated. It could only come from someone with absolute certainty in their belief... If you mean we should all believe what you do, no we shouldn't. and its a good thing too. Your position is basically that science is a giant conspiracy to do away with god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you haven't replied to my post, rather pick a tiny portion and ignore the rest.

 

Please reply to the fact that you have failed to demonstrate the evidence I am asking for, (you even admitted to this claiming it is impossible).... Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away ;)

 

Gilbo, its quite an arrogant assertion to infer that people who understand science have been indoctrinated. It could only come from someone with absolute certainty in their belief... If you mean we should all believe what you do, no we shouldn't. and its a good thing too. Your position is basically that science is a giant conspiracy to do away with god.

 

 

Perhaps quote what I said in context, (such an elusive thing for atheists), since I explain and thus justify the assertion of indoctrination.

 

Here is what I said, in full...

 

"Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occured within the evolution paradigm.

 

There are no "facts" in scientific theory.... Facts are absolute... Yet science is meant to change with new evidence, so to have "facts" in scientific theory would undermine the plasticity of science to incorporate new data, since the new data MUST be viewed under the assumption that "evolution is a fact" rather than being analysed on a basis of neutrality.

 

In other words it is demonstrating the a priori assumptions evolutionists make when they view new data."

 

Can you please reply to the point being made? Do you agree or disagree that by stating something is a fact (absolute) defies the plasticity of science which allows it to incorporate new data on a neutral basis?

 

If you agree then evolutionist indoctrination has occured, if you disagree then you will need to demonstrate how a scientist holding an a priori belief, (evolution is a fact), will not hinder that scientist in being objective and viewing the data objectively and with neutrality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you haven't replied to my post, rather pick a tiny portion and ignore the rest.

 

Please reply to the fact that you have failed to demonstrate the evidence I am asking for, (you even admitted to this claiming it is impossible).... Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away ;)

 

 

Perhaps quote what I said in context, (such an elusive thing for atheists), since I explain and thus justify the assertion of indoctrination.

 

Here is what I said, in full...

 

"Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occured within the evolution paradigm.

 

There are no "facts" in scientific theory.... Facts are absolute... Yet science is meant to change with new evidence, so to have "facts" in scientific theory would undermine the plasticity of science to incorporate new data, since the new data MUST be viewed under the assumption that "evolution is a fact" rather than being analysed on a basis of neutrality.

 

In other words it is demonstrating the a priori assumptions evolutionists make when they view new data."

 

Can you please reply to the point being made? Do you agree or disagree that by stating something is a fact (absolute) defies the plasticity of science which allows it to incorporate new data on a neutral basis?

 

If you agree then evolutionist indoctrination has occured, if you disagree then you will need to demonstrate how a scientist holding an a priori belief, (evolution is a fact), will not hinder that scientist in being objective and viewing the data objectively and with neutrality...

I've brought up a similar point for him here: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6016&do=findComment&comment=106693

 

You'd probably get a kick out of it too! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again you haven't replied to my post, rather pick a tiny portion and ignore the rest.

 

Please reply to the fact that you have failed to demonstrate the evidence I am asking for, (you even admitted to this claiming it is impossible).... Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't make it go away wink.png

 

 

Perhaps quote what I said in context, (such an elusive thing for atheists), since I explain and thus justify the assertion of indoctrination.

 

Here is what I said, in full...

 

"Sadly this demonstrates the level of indoctrination that has occured within the evolution paradigm.

 

There are no "facts" in scientific theory.... Facts are absolute... Yet science is meant to change with new evidence, so to have "facts" in scientific theory would undermine the plasticity of science to incorporate new data, since the new data MUST be viewed under the assumption that "evolution is a fact" rather than being analysed on a basis of neutrality.

 

In other words it is demonstrating the a priori assumptions evolutionists make when they view new data."

 

Can you please reply to the point being made? Do you agree or disagree that by stating something is a fact (absolute) defies the plasticity of science which allows it to incorporate new data on a neutral basis?

 

If you agree then evolutionist indoctrination has occured, if you disagree then you will need to demonstrate how a scientist holding an a priori belief, (evolution is a fact), will not hinder that scientist in being objective and viewing the data objectively and with neutrality...

 

...That's still calling a large number of very well educated people indoctrinated gilbo, which is not true.

 

No i don't agree, certain things are so well substantiated we could, by popular consensus, call them facts about the world. Whether you choose to accept them is another matter. I'm not trying to convince you of it :)

 

...The "new data" has to be interpreted it doesn't just confirm a worldview for you by the virtue of existing. Many of my friends are evolutionary biologists. Do they begin every day with the priori assumption of evolution? - yes they do. This is because they spend most of their waking hours looking at genomes. They can tell for example that different lineages of catfish have repeatedly experienced periods of introgression and shared ploidy events - a visible history and a hallmark of a common ancestry. All they do is fit puzzle pieces together. Its completely obvious (but very technical and difficult). The same people might go out into the field and sample genomes, they understand the biological context. They have no agenda, they are just really interested in their subject and most importantly, they are actively involved in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand.

I'm not exactly surprised. Hewy, you treat truth like a popularity contest. You have this manufactured perception of "THE scientific community" that settles things like clergy in a cult.

 

You have the freedom and opportunity to question things but while certainly you perceive us as unable to acknowledge ideas that run counter to ours. You outdo us in spades as you stop at the "most scientists can't be wrong" argument, shutting your brain off to their whims. Praise Jesus! Christianity isn't like that. I like thinking for myself. Thank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly surprised. Hewy, you treat truth like a popularity contest. You have this manufactured perception of "THE scientific community" that settles things like clergy in a cult.

 

You have the freedom and opportunity to question things but while certainly you perceive us as unable to acknowledge ideas that run counter to ours. You outdo us in spades as you stop at the "most scientists can't be wrong" argument, shutting your brain off to their whims. Praise Jesus! Christianity isn't like that. I like thinking for myself. Thank you very much!

Amen! Nailed-It.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the evidence being presented is: It's pop science so it must be true?

Yes, sir. That's where the trail of bluster leads when you're a free-thinking and rational atheist... (I could hardly type that last bit, it was so contrary)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hewy: This is one of the biggest misconceptions of evolution. I think you have a really dramatic kind of "black or white" model of evolution when all evolution actually is is things living, reproducing and dying.. It is the history of what has happened to life. The fact that evolution occurs is just a consequence of living things having genomes which change. Its not about things trying to become better adapted, species become adapted to their environment as a side-effect of reproducing (that is, the traits which further reproductive fitness, for whatever reason, are obviously those best suited to the present environment). There are no "levels" of evolution.

 

 

Are there limits to this change? Does it go beyond adaptive changes?

 

If you answer yes then I would agree there are no levels of evolution. It sounds like you are the one that is suggesting different levels of evolution.

 

I don't have a problem with a mammal changing the color of its fur but changing into a fish is a level I'm not willing to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...That's still calling a large number of very well educated people indoctrinated gilbo, which is not true.

 

Firstly I wasn't retracting my claim, in fact I actually supported it yet here you claim that somehow its wrong.... simply because you say so....

 

Care to demonstrate how my reasoning is wrong? Because once again you've ignored the main thrust of my point.

 

 

 

Secondly it doesn't matter how "very well educated" they are... If they have been educated to believe false beliefs then claiming they are "well educated" is a moot point. In fact all people are well educated, in the specific spheres of life which relate to them... I may not be a physics-wiz but I do know something of biology (being a Biologist), a farmer may not know much about physics or biology, but would probably be "very well educated" when it came to stock stewardship, farm maintenance etc....

 

 

No i don't agree, certain things are so well substantiated we could, by popular consensus, call them facts about the world.

 

Arguments to popularity is a logical fallacy.... Science, let alone truth, is settled via a popularity vote; what matters is the evidence... Which is what I have been asking for, and is what you admitted you cannot provide.... Hmm ;)

 

 

...The "new data" has to be interpreted it doesn't just confirm a worldview for you by the virtue of existing.

 

Exactly... Yet it should be interpreted OBJECTIVELY, since that is what scientists (should) be trained to be... Sadly this is not the case, since if it were so then we wouldn't have so-called scientists attempting to justify their claims from opinions alone.... Hence why I am asking for their evidence since all they have demonstrated so far is their opinion-based evolutionary "science"...

 

 

 

Many of my friends are evolutionary biologists.

 

Great, was this an attempt at an argument to authority?

 

I am a biologist btw ;)

 

 

 

Do they begin every day with the priori assumption of evolution? - yes they do.

Then you have proven my point... A scientist is called to be objective; which means to not have a priori assumptions, not base claims on opinions, only relate to the data and ONLY what the data itself can demonstrate without additional imagining via the so-called "scientist"...

 

 

This is because they spend most of their waking hours looking at genomes. They can tell for example that different lineages of catfish have repeatedly experienced periods of introgression and shared ploidy events - a visible history and a hallmark of a common ancestry. All they do is fit puzzle pieces together. Its completely obvious (but very technical and difficult). The same people might go out into the field and sample genomes, they understand the biological context.

 

Have you wondered how do they know that the periods of introgression etc really did occur... Considering that evolution is based on past events, it is not repeatable and thus is not able to be tested via the scientific method... If so then how can these "scientists" claim that X Y or Z occured if they have no basis to test such an assertion?... Its simply an unverified hypothesis... That is all evolution is, a giant unverified hypothesis.. Even you admitted to this when you stated that you cannot give the evidence I require in the OP, meaning the hypothesis of evolution is unverified due to the lack of verifiable (empirical) evidence

 

 

 

They have no agenda, they are just really interested in their subject and most importantly, they are actively involved in it.

 

 

The fact that they are actively involved in the evolution paradigm demonstrates that they do have an agenda.... (so your sentence above is an example of self-contradiction).

 

If someone is employed to "study evolution", and evolution was deemed false... Do you think that person would have a job?... If someone built their entire academic career on the premise of evolution, don't you think that person would have a vested interest in ensuring that evolution is not overthrown?... If someone has a degree specifically linked to evolution and it was deemed to be false do you think that degree would have much value after that?...

 

Some things for you to consider ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When evolutionists use similarities between fossils as evidence of evolution, on what basis are they supporting the hidden assumption of "similarities = ancestry"?

 

Wow Gilbo, are you STILL getting that the wrong way round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow Gilbo, are you STILL getting that the wrong way round?

 

Perhaps you can be kind enough to demonstrate this, rather than simply make baseless assertions ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Gilbo, are you STILL getting that the wrong way round?

Please expand this. It seems that a favorite tactic I see deployed toward Gilbo is subtle assumptions that he's mistaken but I can't ever find the demonstrations that are claimed to have taken place elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please expand this. It seems that a favorite tactic I see deployed toward Gilbo is subtle assumptions that he's mistaken but I can't ever find the demonstrations that are claimed to have taken place elsewhere.

 

Thanks Adam, I assume its a favourite because its one of the few things they can do ;)

 

Surely people can read the thread and see that Mac is making baseless assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Adam, I assume its a favourite because its one of the few things they can do ;)

If winning a debate is more important than mutual respect and learning, I guess it's worth a shot when you have nothing else. ;)

 

Surely people can read the thread and see that Mac is making baseless assertions.

Maybe macten's key audience are the low information participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please expand this. It seems that a favorite tactic I see deployed toward Gilbo is subtle assumptions that he's mistaken but I can't ever find the demonstrations that are claimed to have taken place elsewhere.

 

Hi Adam,

 

It's not assuming ancestory or branched ancestry based on the fossil record or trends therein; rather, it's hypothesizing or potentially concluding ancestry (or branched ancestry) based on the fossil record and the trends therein. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Adam,

 

It's not assuming ancestory or branched ancestry based on the fossil record or trends therein; rather, it's hypothesizing or potentially concluding ancestry (or branched ancestry) based on the fossil record and the trends therein. Big difference.

 

What can we know for certain from a fossil?

 

1. what the specific specimen is

2. what minerals it is composed of

3. what it might have been doing: eating/birthing/etc

4. what position the specimen might have been in: upsidedown/etc

5. where the fossil was found (which might not always correspond to where it died)

6. if we find another fossil of the same specimen sometimes we can tell how similar/disimilar they are

 

I don't see how we can get ancestry and trends from a collection of fossils without bias and assumptions. For example, if you were given 10,000 fossils of the same animal you wouldn't be able to know which one was a parent or child to any of them even if your life depended on it. How can you extrapolate that out to different animals? Only with bias and assumptions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how we can get ancestry and trends from a collection of fossils without bias and assumptions.

Search me, Paul. I think evolutionists gravitate towards fossils exactly because of how much their ambiguity allows a broad field for speculation piled upon speculation. The public is getting wiser and the game is getting harder for them. I think that's why the last-ditch-effort is to fall back on appeals to authority and ad populum ad nauseam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not assuming ancestory or branched ancestry based on the fossil record or trends therein; rather, it's hypothesizing or potentially concluding ancestry (or branched ancestry) based on the fossil record and the trends therein. Big difference.

 

What's the difference, Isn't "potentially concluding" without evidence the same as assuming?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If winning a debate is more important than mutual respect and learning, I guess it's worth a shot when you have nothing else. wink.png

 

Maybe macten's key audience are the low information participants.

 

Lol perhaps :)

 

 

 

Hi Adam,

 

It's not assuming ancestory or branched ancestry based on the fossil record or trends therein; rather, it's hypothesizing or potentially concluding ancestry (or branched ancestry) based on the fossil record and the trends therein. Big difference.

 

Paul has given a great response, but here are my additions.

 

What trends allow support common descent? Similarities in fossils? Oh so you are assuming similarities = ancestry....

 

Case closed

 

 

 

What can we know for certain from a fossil?

 

1. what the specific specimen is

2. what minerals it is composed of

3. what it might have been doing: eating/birthing/etc

4. what position the specimen might have been in: upsidedown/etc

5. where the fossil was found (which might not always correspond to where it died)

6. if we find another fossil of the same specimen sometimes we can tell how similar/disimilar they are

 

I don't see how we can get ancestry and trends from a collection of fossils without bias and assumptions. For example, if you were given 10,000 fossils of the same animal you wouldn't be able to know which one was a parent or child to any of them even if your life depended on it. How can you extrapolate that out to different animals? Only with bias and assumptions.

 

Great response, that is exactly the point being explained in the OP :)

 

Fossils do nothing for evolution and ancestry, except when evolutionists assume that similarities = ancestry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What can we know for certain from a fossil?

 

1. what the specific specimen is

2. what minerals it is composed of

3. what it might have been doing: eating/birthing/etc

4. what position the specimen might have been in: upsidedown/etc

5. where the fossil was found (which might not always correspond to where it died)

6. if we find another fossil of the same specimen sometimes we can tell how similar/disimilar they are

 

I don't see how we can get ancestry and trends from a collection of fossils without bias and assumptions. For example, if you were given 10,000 fossils of the same animal you wouldn't be able to know which one was a parent or child to any of them even if your life depended on it. How can you extrapolate that out to different animals? Only with bias and assumptions.

 

I agree with what you are saying when it comes to individual fossils. But, I was referring more to the "big picture" mosaic that the fossil record paints. And what I mean by that is the only very primitive aquatic life (Precambrian) is found in the oldest sediments. As you move into younger sediments, fish appear. And as you continue to move into, yet, younger sediments, life continues to branch outward and upward towards aquatic land dwellers, e.g., amphibians, then reptiles and mammalian reptiles, and eventually birds and mammals. There is a clear progression in the fossil record based on the geology. One hypothesis based on this evidence is that life on earth evolved from very primitive life forms to what we see today .... of course, over a very, very long period of time based on the geologic record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms