Theory in Crisis

[Subduction Zone]

While you believe you can refute the Bible, it's obvious that evolutionists do not agree on many fundamental concepts. And, I still say, the proof really is not there. Meaning there are obviously similar genes and structures in animals, but there is no genetic proof showing the emergence from one form to another, such as fish to reptiles, or vice versa, whichever came first.

The Bible was refuted, if one makes the error of reading certain parts of it literally, long before evolution came along as a theory. And, no, the disagreement is at a detail level, not at a fundamental level.

I used to be a Christian myself and I was and still am, irritated by people that call their God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No proof of "natural selection" there in genetic evolution micro or macro style.
Well, this headline caught my attention. See what you think. It does not say evolution is wrong. Just that there is an evolution in the understanding of evolution.
"An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
(essentially all models are wrong.)

Once again, read more than the headline. Ask questions about the parts that you do not understand.

 

[Valjean]

You keep bringing up what you call a myth. I'm not sure what you consider incorrect versions, but that's a different discussion. In the meantime, I hope you will look at the article about research into proteins at the University of Virginia. An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”

How does this support your position? This isn't a refutation of evolution.
It's just a new hypothesis of protein generation. Hypotheses are tweaked or new ones proposed all the time. If research and hypothesis formation stopped all of science would grind to a halt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does this support your position? This isn't a refutation of evolution.
It's just a new hypothesis of protein generation. Hypotheses are tweaked or new ones proposed all the time. If research and hypothesis formation stopped all of science would grind to a halt.

i wonder if he expected to float off into space when he learned that Einstein showed that Newton was "wrong".

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's what it seems like to me. But I don't think someone can put a whale together from, um, evolutionary scratch. Maybe an evolutionist believes that one day they will make whales and humans from, shall we say, bacteriological scratch?

Argument from incredulity. "I can't imagine how X could be true, therefore X must be false."

Your inability to imagine how whale evolution could be true provides no information about why it is false in reality.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I understand. Interestingly, the Bible says that not everyone has the gift of faith. I learned a while ago that only God can give you this gift of faith. Certainly it is true in my case. I used to say I didn't believe in God. I must have been a true atheist, because I did not say God does not exist. I would say that I don't believe in God. Thinking he did not exist, but I didn't say it. Now I do not say that. That is my experience, and obviously when Paul was preaching to others about his experience, he was not always believed.

Sermon time. I have seen this repeatedly with Kent Hovind when he tries to debate. He shotguns many statements about evolution, and when he doesn't have an answer, he resorts to a sermon.

We don't care what your Bible says.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hockycowboy doesn't understand natural selection, or the implications of reproduction with variation.

And his religious beliefs includes doctrines that "forbids" him from understanding.

That doesn't seem to stop his denouncing it, though.

Yeah, well... denouncing it, is also part of the doctrine he is committed to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not quite. He is a proponent of ID, but distinguishes that from biblical creationism.

Here's something that you should google: "cdesign proponentsist"

Really, you should. You should know the backstory of that term; where it comes from.
That should inform you on the implication and misinformation of the quoted statement of yours.

Basically he believes in guided evolution to some extent, but seems to be of the opinion that evolution has been allowed to develop over time without constant guidance.

Yeah, these people will say whatever vague thing they can in order to not sound like the YECs of before and instead camouflage their nonsense in more sciency sounding language.

He has some pretty interesting (not compelling in my opinion) ideas about life existing outside of Earth, but seems to think the universe is tuned for humans.

Of course he thinks that.... it's part of his religious doctrine. He doesn't merely "think" it, instead he has to believe that.

 

[tas8831]

Once again, read more than the headline. Ask questions about the parts that you do not understand.

Wait - you mean that the hyperbolic title of a click-bait website press release is not 100% accurate???

 

[tas8831]

Sermon time. I have seen this repeatedly with Kent Hovind when he tries to debate. He shotguns many statements about evolution, and when he doesn't have an answer, he resorts to a sermon.

We don't care what your Bible says.

I wonder if such folk would be cowed into submission by references to the Bhagavad Gita?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So is there genetic proof or evidence of fish becoming land crawlers extracted from fossilized remains?

There's actually incredible empirical evidence of this. So much so that it is a wonderfull example of just how extremely solid the explanatory power of the evolutionary model of biology actually is. It's pretty impressive.

So.... Using rough dates here for the sake of simplicity...

Before roughly 375 million years ago, there was only sea life and no animal land crawlers.
After roughly 375 million years ago, there were.

So... evolutionary scientists concluded that around the 370 million year landmark, there should be transitional creatures in the process of evolving from fishlike vertebrates to land crawling vertebrates.

A whole list of expected traits was defined, including but certainly not limited to: the type of expected environment (in or near relatively shallow waters), physical traits (particularly concerning neck bones etc).

So, they consulted geologists (so we're cross scientific field here as well...) to find exposed rock from that particular time period which during that time would have been in or near shallow waters etc.

Such rock was identified and a team went there on a dig.

Lo and behold, they found tiktaalik. Previously unknown species, yet exactly the type of organism that was predicted. In pretty much the exact location with pretty much the exact traits exhibited.


Pretty impressive if you ask me.


How come they were able to do this, if the underlying theory that was used to make this astonishing prediction, on which it is completely based on... is supposedly completely bonkers?

 

[Ouroboros]

No proof of "natural selection" there in genetic evolution micro or macro style.
Well, this headline caught my attention. See what you think. It does not say evolution is wrong. Just that there is an evolution in the understanding of evolution.
"An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
(essentially all models are wrong.)

Also the article is specifically talking about a part of evolution, the evolution of proteins.

Imagine that we know gravity exists. We come up with theories about gravity. Then someone comes up with a theory called general relativity that explains gravity in a new way, claiming the old way wasn't perfectly accurate. Then another theory comes that explain gravity based on quantum mechanics or particle physics or something like that, maybe even introduce gravitons or Higgs bosons or something or other, and it explains gravity in yet another way, but can't really supplant the old models fully. That doesn't mean that gravity isn't explained in some way or that the models are all wrong, but that they models explain the phenomenon to best of our knowledge and understanding. The same works for the evolution in general and any specific part of it, we do understand a lot and the models aren't completely wrong, but they tend to be incomplete, because God didn't send any prophet yet to explain all the details in how the world works. He only sends prophets to confuse us and create ideologies to fight over. The only way we can understand the world and nature is by exploring it, creating understanding and refining our knowledge about it. The gods aren't helping us so far. But the models do.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here's something that you should google: "cdesign proponentsist"

Really, you should. You should know the backstory of that term; where it comes from.
That should inform you on the implication and misinformation of the quoted statement of yours.

Okay...I hadn't heard that term before, but I'm well aware of the substitution of ID for creation in text books/potential text books.
To be clear, I'm not for a moment suggesting he has scientific credibility.

Yeah, these people will say whatever vague thing they can in order to not sound like the YECs of before and instead camouflage their nonsense in more sciency sounding language.

Agreed

Of course he thinks that.... it's part of his religious doctrine. He doesn't merely "think" it, instead he has to believe that.

The 'tuned for humans' part, sure. It's unusual for a creationist, whatever the flavour, to believe in the likelihood of aliens.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to read more than just the headlines. That article points out that science gets more accurate as time goes on. It supports evolution and does not contradict it. They propose what could be a more accurate way to model evolution.

I know it does not say the theory of evolution is wrong. But why don't you tell me (again in so many words), that author who wrote that domain, kingdom, phylum, lineage and so forth is "just science’s best guess about how genes have mutated and split over time to change things into what they are today," is wrong. Nothing you can show to refute that. Nothing. It's a guess, I knew it once I got used to reading more about the theory. It's a guess as to how things mutated and split.

 

[YoursTrue]

Also the article is specifically talking about a part of evolution, the evolution of proteins.

Imagine that we know gravity exists. We come up with theories about gravity. Then someone comes up with a theory called general relativity that explains gravity in a new way, claiming the old way wasn't perfectly accurate. Then another theory comes that explain gravity based on quantum mechanics or particle physics or something like that, maybe even introduce gravitons or Higgs bosons or something or other, and it explains gravity in yet another way, but can't really supplant the old models fully. That doesn't mean that gravity isn't explained in some way or that the models are all wrong, but that they models explain the phenomenon to best of our knowledge and understanding. The same works for the evolution in general and any specific part of it, we do understand a lot and the models aren't completely wrong, but they tend to be incomplete, because God didn't send any prophet yet to explain all the details in how the world works. He only sends prophets to confuse us and create ideologies to fight over. The only way we can understand the world and nature is by exploring it, creating understanding and refining our knowledge about it. The gods aren't helping us so far. But the models do.

The models will not take away death, the final outcome. Only God Almighty (THE Almighty one-and-only) can do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay...I hadn't heard that term before, but I'm well aware of the substitution of ID for creation in text books/potential text books.
To be clear, I'm not for a moment suggesting he has scientific credibility.



Agreed



The 'tuned for humans' part, sure. It's unusual for a creationist, whatever the flavour, to believe in the likelihood of aliens.

I think I was a bit fast in my reply so my tone / wording was perhaps not appropriate.
For a second there I thought you were trying to rationalize ID and didn't even notice you're an atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think I was a bit fast in my reply so my tone / wording was perhaps not appropriate.
For a second there I thought you were trying to rationalize ID and didn't even notice you're an atheist.

Nah, it's all good. No stress this end.

ID is a pile of bollocks.

 

[gnostic]

The models will not take away death, the final outcome. Only God Almighty (THE Almighty one-and-only) can do that.

Good grief.

Evolution and all other scientific theories say nothing about preventing death. None of them talk about the imaginary resurrection and about the afterlife.

So what in the hell are you talking about?!

 

[Ouroboros]

The models will not take away death, the final outcome. Only God Almighty (THE Almighty one-and-only) can do that.

Which doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Not sure what that has to do with evolution, except that death is a necessary part of evolutionary theory to work. Without death, there wouldn't be much of a selection. And without selection, there wouldn't be progression of beneficial genes.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Good grief.

Evolution and all other scientific theories say nothing about preventing death. None of them talk about the imaginary resurrection and about the afterlife.

So what in the hell are you talking about?!

Retreating behind the walls of his religious dogman.