question for those who reject biological evolution

[leroy]

BTW even creationists accept heritable random mutation (variation in progeny ex. dogs from wolf) and natural selection. (slow critters get eaten first and don't have babies)

Granted, nobody denies the fact that random variation + natural selection occurs…………… your burden is to show that complex organisms , systems, organs, etc. evolved from simpler stuff through that specific mechanism. (why not some other mechanism?)

The fact that this mechanism exists doesn’t automatically prove that it is responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life.

 

[Pogo]

Yes it was, originally the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s to refer to those ancient “big lizards” and birds were not included that definition…….. my only point is that the question on how dinosaurs evolved in to birds is not solved by simply changing the definition of dinosaur and say “ohh but birds are dinosaurs”



No doubt, taht flight evovled

My only objection is that there is no conclusive evidence that they evolved trough the specific mechanism random mutation + natural selection.

If you quote a paper that concludes the opposite feel free to quote it (the exact words) and I will admit my mistake and change my mind

1841 Richard Owen terrible lizard to describe creatures found in the paleological record that incorrectly called dragons. Discoveries since have added numerous species to it and analysis of the record has led to the conclusion that birds are actually living descendants of some of those fossil species. It is not actually a change in definition.

 

[leroy]

If you could come up with an alternative that explains the data as well. Intelligent design, Saltation and Goddidit are not intellectually consistent.
Like I said, you will get a Nobel prize if you come up with one.

First: no I don’t have to come up with an alternative…………. Why can´t we simply say "we don’t know yet”?………… after all no scientist claims to *know*,,,,,,,,,,,, only internet atheist seem to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Second: many alternatives have been provided in the literature, but no author claims to have the definitive answer, we only have hypothesis. (natural genetic engineering, trasposoons, epigenetics, etc are some of the alternatives that have been suggested in the literature)

Third: sure, I don’t think “God did it” is the answer (at least not in the sense that YEC would claim)

 

[Pogo]

Granted, nobody denies the fact that random variation + natural selection occurs…………… your burden is to show that complex organisms , systems, organs, etc. evolved from simpler stuff through that specific mechanism. (why not some other mechanism?)

The fact that this mechanism exists doesn’t automatically prove that it is responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Very simply, I do not need to demonstrate the theory of evolution at your request any more than I need to explain gravity to you.
If you wish to question a well evidenced theory, it is your responsibility to demonstrate not only a problem, but also a solution that better explains the observations.
This will require you to understand the theory in the first place, not just express tiny little doubts.

Otherwise at best you have provided a question for further research.

 

[Pogo]

First: no I don’t have to come up with an alternative…………. Why can´t we simply say "we don’t know yet”?………… after all no scientist claims to *know*,,,,,,,,,,,, only internet atheist seem to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

Second: many alternatives have been provided in the literature, but no author claims to have the definitive answer, we only have hypothesis. (natural genetic engineering, trasposoons, epigenetics, etc are some of the alternatives that have been suggested in the literature)

Third: sure, I don’t think “God did it” is the answer (at least not in the sense that YEC would claim)

No, the provisional nature of science doesn't mean that everything is just a maybe. Questioning whether the sun will rise tomorrow because Newtonian physics is just a theory and in fact an incomplete one is not a reasonable response to a theory with as much evidence as evolution.
It falls into the category of unreasonable doubt which is why if you want to question it, you better have something real good to replace it with.
We actually know less about gravity than we do evolution.

As to your transposons, epigenetics etc, they are interesting things that now that they have been studied and mechanisms elucidated have become part of the theory. That is the way that science works, by incorporating new knowledge. Darwin is long out of date as a source.

 

[leroy]

1841 Richard Owen terrible lizard to describe creatures found in the paleological record that incorrectly called dragons. Discoveries since have added numerous species to it and analysis of the record has led to the conclusion that birds are actually living descendants of some of those fossil species. It is not actually a change in definition.

Originally the term dinosaur was a generic term used to describe ancient animals llike Trex Velosiraptor pterodactyl etc. it had nothing to do with evolution not phalogenetics nor clades

Later, the definition was changed and dinosaur became a clade that includes birds and excludes pterodactyls Plesiosaur and other cool animals that in my hart will always be considered dinosaurs.

But the point is that this is just semantics……. You don’t solve the problem by simply saying ohh but birds are dinosaurs…………….. you still need to explain how X evolved in to Y regadless if you what to call X and Y dinosaurs or not

 

[leroy]

No, the provisional nature of science doesn't mean that everything is just a maybe. Questioning whether the sun will rise tomorrow because Newtonian physics is just a theory and in fact an incomplete one is not a reasonable response to a theory with as much evidence as evolution.
It falls into the category of unreasonable doubt which is why if you want to question it, you better have something real good to replace it with.
We actually know less about gravity than we do evolution.

As to your transposons, epigenetics etc, they are interesting things that now that they have been studied and mechanisms elucidated have become part of the theory. That is the way that science works, by incorporating new knowledge. Darwin is long out of date as a source.

Just answer yes or no

Do you affirm “beyond reasonable doubt” that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms mainly as a result of random variation + natural selection?

If you answer No, then we both agree (together with the scientific comunuty)

If you answer yes, then you have a biiiiiiig burden , and you are alone, since no paper has ever been published supporting such radical claims.

 

[leroy]

Very simply, I do not need to demonstrate the theory of evolution at your request any more than I need to explain gravity to you.
If you wish to question a well evidenced theory, it is your responsibility to demonstrate not only a problem, but also a solution that better explains the observations.
This will require you to understand the theory in the first place, not just express tiny little doubts.

Otherwise at best you have provided a question for further research.

Well first lets agree that we have a problem

Problem: we don’t know how complex stuff evolved. (random mutation + natural selection is just one of many possible expalnations)

Then we can argue and see what is the best solution for this problem

 

[Pogo]

Originally the term dinosaur was a generic term used to describe ancient animals llike Trex Velosiraptor pterodactyl etc. it had nothing to do with evolution not phalogenetics nor clades

Later, the definition was changed and dinosaur became a clade that includes birds and excludes pterodactyls Plesiosaur and other cool animals that in my hart will always be considered dinosaurs.

But the point is that this is just semantics……. You don’t solve the problem by simply saying ohh but birds are dinosaurs…………….. you still need to explain how X evolved in to Y regadless if you what to call X and Y dinosaurs or not

Uh yeah Leeroy, 1841 is before 1859 when Darwin published Origin of Species with his explanation of how X evolved into Y.
The ToE has added to that since then and it is still the explanation that you are looking for.

The explanation is available to you on the internet and in libraries but it is up to you to educate yourself.

 

[Pogo]

Just answer yes or no

Do you affirm “beyond reasonable doubt” that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms mainly as a result of random variation + natural selection?

If you answer No, then we both agree (together with the scientific comunuty)

If you answer yes, then you have a biiiiiiig burden , and you are alone, since no paper has ever been published supporting such radical claims.

Yes I affirm that, so does the scientific community.

Darwin basically got it right 150+ years ago, since then it is icing on the cake and as you know, your ideas are not working to take over the world.

But go ahead and try to dislodge the Theory of Evolution again, it is comical.

 

[Pogo]

Well first lets agree that we have a problem

Problem: we don’t know how complex stuff evolved. (random mutation + natural selection is just one of many possible expalnations)

Then we can argue and see what is the best solution for this problem

See Theory of Evolution for how complex stuff evolved.

 

[anotherneil]

Well, the claim “organisms change and adapt” is obviously true and leads to many benefits such as better crops, vaccines, and drugs and all the other mechanism that you mentioned

But the claim:

Complex organs like the human eye evolved from simpler organs though a process of random variation + natural selection is at best a “plausible but hypothesis” that has no bearing in curing cancer, nor any of the other benefits that you mentioned………… when people reject evolution they usually refer to this type of thing

It seems you're just attempting to dodge the question on the "royal" (as in "the royal 'we'") behalf of "(other) people".

I'm essentially asking a - "what if X is true" question, and it's as if you're trying to come back with "but X is false!" We could probably debate whether there's any point in asking "what if X is true" if you made a sound argument that gave a conclusion that X is indeed false, but you haven't even made an attempt at such an argument at all. The question can still be construed as hypothetical for the sake of answering it.

If there are people who don't want to accept the premise of the question or construe the question as hypothetical, then that's fine; they can simply ignore the question and move on. They are under no obligation to accept the premise of the question or construe the question as hypothetical; I can simply presume that they would not believe that they would be in a situation where they would need to say that they'd accept a treatment for an illness that was made possible from biological evolution, because there would never be such a treatment anyways. Apparently they're happy with that, and I see no reason not to also be happy with that.

The human eye evolving from simpler organs is an example of organisms changing and adapting. Is it your contention that the human eye may have evolved from simpler organs, but not necessarily through a process of random variation + natural selection - or, is it your contention that when people reject evolution, it makes no difference to them whether the process is described as "random variation + natural selection" or described with different wording?

No, I wouldn’t cancel my treatment, because those treatments are based on assumptions and claims that are likely to be true………..

Well, thank you for answering the question, but it doesn't seem like you qualify as someone I was addressing with the OP question based on how you're answering, here.

but the truth of these claims and assumptions don’t imply that the Darwinian theory of evolution is true

In other words.

1 Evolionists claim X Y and Z

2 Science shows that X is true

3 Therefore evolutionists arbitrary assume that Y and Z most also be true

I don't see how this has any relevance to the OP; please elaborate.

 

[leroy]

The explanation is available to you on the internet and in libraries but it is up to you to educate yourself.

Or you can do what scientists do.

Admit that there is not an explanation *yet* for how birds evolved, and keep searching

 

[leroy]

Yes I affirm that, so does the scientific community.

Ok, can you quote a peer reviewed paper that concludes (beyond reasonable doubt) that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms though the specific mechanism of random mutation + natural selection?

(no you cant)

So given that you can´t quote that paper………under what bases do you affirm that the scientific community is on your side.

 

[Pogo]

Or you can do what scientists do.

Admit that there is not an explanation *yet* for how birds evolved, and keep searching

You can search for a better explanation, but saying there is no explanation is just lying.

You just keep proving that you never learn from your nightly failures.

You have taken this Brain character way beyond comedy through farce and into tragedy.

 

[leroy]

You can search for a better explanation, but saying there is no explanation is just lying.

You just keep proving that you never learn from your nightly failures.

You have taken this Brain character way beyond comedy through farce and into tragedy.

What I mean is that there is not a definitive explanation that is true beyond reasonable doubt. (we don’t have a scientific theory for how birds evolved)

But granted, there are many possible explanations (we have many possible hypothesis for how birds evolved)

Any disagreement form your part?

or to put it this way

We know that birds evolved form ancient flightless dinosaurs…………….but we don’t know (yet) how, we don’t know the mechanisms………………any disagreement?

 

[anotherneil]

What scientific discovery, Paper, experiment etc. convince you that there is no God?

I don't know of any such discovery, Paper, experiment etc. You're asking for a bit much by asking for proof of a negative.

Why are you asking me, anyways? I didn't assert that there is no God. This seems like a loaded question or straw man attack.

Is there any arguments based on science against the existence of God?

I don't know.

In order for any of this to happen, it's necessary for there to be a scientifically usable definition or explanation of who or what God is.

I do happen to have an idea of who or what God is - where the concept seems to have originated. It has to do with the Batinis and the Assassins - how and why they were created, and in a manner of speaking, it does "prove" that there "is" a God and who he "is" (or was).

Anyhow, all of this is beyond the scope of this thread. I do want to eventually get more into the Batinis and the Assassins, but I'll do that on another thread.

 

[Pogo]

No leeroy, science is agnostic to any gods, there are not and cannot be scientific arguments for or against God's that do not operate in the material realm. The scientific method that all scientists use regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof is called methodological naturalism.

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).

 

[leroy]

I don't know of any such discovery, Paper, experiment etc. You're asking for a bit much by asking for proof of a negative.

Why are you asking me, anyways? I didn't assert that there is no God. This seems like a loaded question or straw man attack.


I don't know.

In order for any of this to happen, it's necessary for there to be a scientifically usable definition or explanation of who or what God is.

I do happen to have an idea of who or what God is - where the concept seems to have originated. It has to do with the Batinis and the Assassins - how and why they were created, and in a manner of speaking, it does "prove" that there "is" a God and who he "is" (or was).

Anyhow, all of this is beyond the scope of this thread. I do want to eventually get more into the Batinis and the Assassins, but I'll do that on another thread.

Well it seems to me that you are saying that you used to believe in God, but then you discovered science and became an atheist.

So I am simply asking what scientific *“thing”* did you learned that convinced you that there is no God?............or am I misrepresenting your view?


"but as I grew up and learned science, and compared how science involved showing nature, the universe, and reality through observation, experimentation, critical thinking - while religion didn't do any of that, it was not difficult for me to make the choice between religion and science."

 

[Pogo]

What I mean is that there is not a definitive explanation that is true beyond reasonable doubt. (we don’t have a scientific theory for how birds evolved)

But granted, there are many possible explanations (we have many possible hypothesis for how birds evolved)

Any disagreement form your part?

or to put it this way

We know that birds evolved form ancient flightless dinosaurs…………….but we don’t know (yet) how, we don’t know the mechanisms………………any disagreement?

The fact that we don't know everything and never will does not mean that we don't know anything. Evolution is a fact and the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have. Your attempting to question what we do know is unreasonable.
To the extent that you are hoping to insert a god somewhere, first this is called the god of the gaps idea and it is theologically terrible,second as I have already explained it is not science.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The American Biology Teacher, March 1973​