question for those who reject biological evolution

[leroy]

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​

But there is nothing wrong with pointing out the things that we know and the things that we don’t know.

1 we know that birds evovled from ancient dinosaurs

2 we don’t know how it happened. (we don’t know the mechanisms)

Any disagreement?

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, you are wrong, we do know the mechanisms, descent with modification and selection.
There is a lot more detail available if you are willing to learn but denying what we do know is lying and expecting infinite detail is silly if you can't produce genomes for Adam and Eve.

But there is nothing wrong with pointing out the things that we know and the things that we don’t know.

1 we know that birds evovled from ancient dinosaurs

2 we don’t know how it happened. (we don’t know the mechanisms)

Any disagreement?

 

[anotherneil]

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."

You're misrepresenting my view.

Yes, I used to believe in God, then I lost interest in believing in God, so I simply discontinued my belief in God. I also stopped being religious, and I do not label myself as atheist since being atheist essentially still entails being religious.

To a person like me, asking me whether or not there is a deity, including one called God, is like asking someone who has no interest in comic books whether Kirby or Moebius is the real Silver Surfer, or asking someone who has no interest in football which NFL team do they like.

I believed in God because I was taken to church and told to believe in God & if I didn't, then I could burn in hell. When I grew up, I realized that all this religious stuff is unfounded.

Scientific observations and discoveries are not unfounded, and they serve a useful & beneficial purpose for humanity; religion only serves the opposite purpose.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, you are wrong, we do know the mechanisms, descent with modification and selection.
There is a lot more detail available if you are willing to learn but denying what we do know is lying and expecting infinite detail is silly if you can't produce genomes for Adam and Eve.

Descend with modification is too vague and includes pretty much every possibility………… even old theories like Lamarkism and Mutationalism would fal in to that category.

So yes, granted, if you leave the door open for anything that falls in to the category of “descend with modification” then there is no controversy.

But my point is and has always been about the specific mechanism of random variation + NS ……… so why are you changing the goal post?



you are the one who is claimng that there is conclusive evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that simple organism evovled in to complex organisms through the proces of random mutation + natrual selection................ so why do you take your burden and support your claims?

 

[leroy]

You're misrepresenting my view.

Yes, I used to believe in God, then I lost interest in believing in God, so I simply discontinued my belief in God. I also stopped being religious, and I do not label myself as atheist since being atheist essentially still entails being religious.

To a person like me, asking me whether or not there is a deity, including one called God, is like asking someone who has no interest in comic books whether Kirby or Moebius is the real Silver Surfer, or asking someone who has no interest in football which NFL team do they like.

I believed in God because I was taken to church and told to believe in God & if I didn't, then I could burn in hell. When I grew up, I realized that all this religious stuff is unfounded.

Scientific observations and discoveries are not unfounded, and they serve a useful & beneficial purpose for humanity; religion only serves the opposite purpose.

Ok so in essence you didn’t found any evidence against God in science or elsewhere, you simply lost interest………….. is this a good representation of your view?

 

[Pogo]

Descend with modification is too vague and includes pretty much every possibility………… even old theories like Lamarkism and Mutationalism would fal in to that category.

So yes, granted, if you leave the door open for anything that falls in to the category of “descend with modification” then there is no controversy.

But my point is and has always been about the specific mechanism of random variation + NS ……… so why are you changing the goal post?



you are the one who is claimng that there is conclusive evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that simple organism evovled in to complex organisms through the proces of random mutation + natrual selection................ so why do you take your burden and support your claims?

Cuz I am not going to explain 150 years of science to someone who is going to dismiss it out of hand because he learned his biology from a creationist website. there is no one thing, it is the consilience of all the evidence.

Start Here.

Understanding Evolution​

 

[anotherneil]

Ok so in essence you didn’t found any evidence against God in science or elsewhere, you simply lost interest………….. is this a good representation of your view?

No, it's not close to being a representation of my view, at all; it doesn't even make any sense. It would've at least made some sense if you wrote "for" in place of "against", but that also wouldn't quite have hit the mark. As I said earlier, I think I know where the concept of God comes from, and I do see evidence for that.

 

[Astrophile]

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”

According to Origin of birds - Wikipedia , T.H. Huxley 'proposed an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs' as early as 1868 and 1870, less than ten years after the discovery of the first Archaeopteryx. This is not a new idea plucked out of the air.

No doubt, that flight evolved

My only objection is that there is no conclusive evidence that they evolved through 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

Do you accept that living things have evolved through a process of descent with modification, by the long-term accumulation of small changes from one generation to the next? If so, how does this process differ from random mutation + natural selection? If not, how do you think that living things evolved?

 

[leroy]

Cuz I am not going to explain 150 years of science to someone who is going to dismiss it out of hand because he learned his biology from a creationist website. there is no one thing, it is the consilience of all the evidence.

Start Here.

Understanding Evolution​

Sounds like a sad and pathetic attempt to avoid your burden proof.

You don’t have to educate me on anything………………………..all you have to do is quote a paper that supports your claim…………. If I ever claim that “X” is true beyond reasonable doubt you would ask me to support such claim with a paper or something

 

[leroy]

Do you accept that living things have evolved through a process of descent with modification, by the long-term accumulation of small changes from one generation to the next?

yes i do accept that

If so, how does this process differ from random mutation + natural selection? If not, how do you think that living things evolved?

An other alternative that I find more likely could be that relevant mutations are not always random ……….. so we still have descend with modification, but this “modification” is not random


a quick argument
1 given that we evolved from simpler organisms

And

2 given that the mechanism of random mutation + NS doesn’t aim at complexity

We can conclude that The mechanism behind evolution has to be something that aims at complexity……. In other words, there has to be something else apart form random mutations and natural selection……… this something else could be natural or supernatural but that would be a different topipc.

 

[Pogo]

Sounds like a sad and pathetic attempt to avoid your burden proof.

You don’t have to educate me on anything………………………..all you have to do is quote a paper that supports your claim…………. If I ever claim that “X” is true beyond reasonable doubt you would ask me to support such claim with a paper or something

Nope it is a first step for you to start learning so that you can actually why your request is demonstrative of your ignorance. 150 years of evidence is the paper you want. Start reading.

 

[leroy]

Nope it is a first step for you to start learning so that you can actually why your request is demonstrative of your ignorance. 150 years of evidence is the paper you want. Start reading.

Again this is sad and pathetic, why won’t you simply admit that you can’t support your claim?............

 

[Pogo]

Again this is sad and pathetic, why won’t you simply admit that you can’t support your claim?............

It is not us with the problem, you are the one with the learning disability.

 

[leroy]

It is not us with the problem, you are the one with the learning disability.

That is not a good excuse, you are expected to support your claims, regardless if I have learning disability or not.

Your claim being

“We know beyond reasonable doubt that Organisms evolved through random mutations + natural selection and that the consensus of scientists agrees with me”

Why won’t you support your claim? Even if I am too stupid to understand, …… Don’t you think that there might be other users in this forum that might be interested in your evidence?

 

[Pogo]

That is not a good excuse, you are expected to support your claims, regardless if I have learning disability or not.

Your claim being

“We know beyond reasonable doubt that Organisms evolved through random mutations + natural selection and that the consensus of scientists agrees with me”

Why won’t you support your claim? Even if I am too stupid to understand, …… Don’t you think that there might be other users in this forum that might be interested in your evidence?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Redefining the word “Dinosaur” such that it now includes birds, doesn’t solve the problem,

There is no such "redefining".

Try and come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which includes ALL dinosaurs, yet excludes birds without arbitrarily adding "...except birds".

You can't do it.
Just like you can't come up with a definition for "mammal" or "primate" which includes ALL mammals / primates, yet excludes humans without arbitrarily adding "...except humans".

Birds ARE dinosaurs. Just like humans ARE mammals.

the issue is how can a flightless creature evolved in to a creature that can fly, through random mutations and natural selection…… weather if you what to label them as dinosaur or bird, or both is irrelevant.

Google "evolution of flight".

Or better yet, duckduckgo it. Google might give you warped results based on your cdesign proponentsists browsing history profile.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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……..

In case you haven't notice, we learned quite a few things since the 1800s.
It's called "progress".

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”

The changed (aka "improved") understanding of what dinosaurs are was not some arbitrary thing like you seem to be insinuating.
It was instead necessitated based on new discoveries. In case you didn't notice, we discovered quite a few more dino fossils since then. Our understanding of evolution, anatomy, fossils, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc etc etc etc, also improved quite a bit since then.

It's almost like you are actively trying to ignore 200 years worth of scientific progress.

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

That's a bit of a nutshell way of stating it, but true nonetheless.
There are no other known mechanisms and the ones that are known, are sufficient to explain the facts.


If you think there are other mechanisms that would need to be included, you are free to suggest them + provide the evidence that you feel justifies the need to include them.

If you can't do that, then it seems all you have is this argument from incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

"in my hart" - lol.


You remind me of 9-year olds who are sad and will "always consider pluto to be a planet in their hart".

But the point is that this is just semantics…….

The definition of what a dinosaur is, isn't any more semantics then the definition of what a mammal is.
You continue to imply that definitions of clades are somehow arbitrary. They are not. They are data-driven.

You don’t solve the problem by simply saying ohh but birds are dinosaurs

Nobody is "simply saying" that.
Just like nobody is "simply saying" that humans are mammals.

…………….. you still need to explain how X evolved in to Y regadless if you what to call X and Y dinosaurs or not

No, actually.

Even if we wouldn't have a clue on how birds evolved, their anatomy would still make them dino's.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

The bolded part is a straight up falsehood at best, and a lie at worst.

 

[Tomef]

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.

Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

I think that’s how that Planet of the Apes documentary started, so we should be careful. Maybe ask Charlton Heston what he thinks.