Isn't this cute?

[Polymath257]

Again, not one creationist claims species don't change.

So they agree that evolution occurs?

 

[Polymath257]

First of all, evolution is a theory. It's still a theory. the problem is, it's not like gravity. I can't literally "see" gravity like I can see a gorilla. But gravity is not a theory, it's a LAW that is demonstrated without variance. There is no real variation. The theory of gravity may be in question, in other words, the 'how's and why's.' But not so evolution. There is no law. No observation.

Let's discuss gravity first. What, precisely, do you think is the 'law' of gravity?

Newton proposed a 'law of gravity' in the late 1600's. But we *know* that 'law' is wrong in detail. It is a very good *approximation* in many cases, but we know it is wrong.

It was replaced about a century ago by Einstein's *theory* of general relativity. This *theory* is much more accurate than Newton's 'law'.

The point is that the way we use language has changed over the centuries. Scientists no longer tend to claim something is a 'law'. So, we have the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of plate tectonics, and quantum theory.

The 'law' of evolution is that species change over time in response to their environment. This has been observed and there are mountains of evidence in support of it. The details, the *theory* of evolution, discusses the mechanisms of such changes, comparing natural selection to genetic drift, to Punctuated Equilibria, etc.

But, in the sense that you are attempting to use the word 'law', there is just as much a 'law' of evolution as there is a 'law' of gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

To an extent, I would say that professor said a golden rule when he spoke about science. Although, again -- those "transitional fossils" and their analysis of position and evolutionary development do not prove, show, or demonstrate evolution. Except in the minds of the believers.

Why not? They show that intermediate species existed. They show that species change over time. And that *is* evolution.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So they agree that evolution occurs?

The depends on you your definition of evolution. Sine you have already said more than once the creationists don't believe in species changing, which is false, I don't think you have an idea what creationists really define as evolution.

 

[tas8831]

The entire Hadar- Laetoli collection of around 300 bones is claimed to be from a single hominin species, supposedly a human ancestor. There were bones in there basically identical to modern humans.
These were found near human looking footprints.
Contrary to what you might find in a science book, there was no universal consensus by scientists that these were all Bones from the same specie of ape.
If you want my opinion the guy that found them went with the explanation that will bring him the most Glory.

So just speculation.

 

[tas8831]

The depends on you your definition of evolution. Sine you have already said more than once the creationists don't believe in species changing, which is false, I don't think you have an idea what creationists really define as evolution.

Then do tell. Use as much scientific terminology as necessary. Just don't plagiarize as usual.

 

[tas8831]

According to a study from 2006, evolution denialism in the US is rooted in three main factors (in order of importance): 1) fundamentalist religious beliefs, 2) Republican Party politics, and 3) lack of knowledge of science.

http://home.sandiego.edu/~kaufmann/biol190/Miller_et_al_2006.pdf

The triumvirate of evil...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it is amusing to watch a new representative follow all the old tricks and do it as if no one has ever seen them a billion times before.

Science is religion. Check.

No evidence offered to support claims. Check.

Why are there still monkeys? Check.

Regular guys no more about science than scientists. Check.

Plenty of straw on hand. Check.

And so on.

Right? This guy's hitting them all!

We should arrange them on a BINGO card at this point and just start playing drinking games.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This from the same guy who says you can not be a biologist unless you accept the ToE. I don't suppose you see the contradiction?

There is no contradiction.

Evolution is the backbone of biology. They go hand-in-hand.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, evolution is a theory. It's still a theory. the problem is, it's not like gravity. I can't literally "see" gravity like I can see a gorilla. But gravity is not a theory, it's a LAW that is demonstrated without variance. There is no real variation. The theory of gravity may be in question, in other words, the 'how's and why's.' But not so evolution. There is no law. No observation.

Gravity is a law and a theory.

Here's a primer for you to read through, so you can stop making this bogus claim. (Seriously, do you never read anyone's posts? How are you STILL repeating this?)
Is gravity a theory or a law?



And I guess I have to point out AGAIN that evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation that describes how evolution happens.

It's a wonder to me that you have no interest in correcting yourself when you're shown to be in error.
Are you not actually interested in believing true things and disbelieving untrue things, as I am? You seem to be happier just believing whatever makes you feel good, actual truth be damned.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Such as? Give an example of wildswanderer's disagreement with observed biology

His rejection of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The depends on you your definition of evolution. Sine you have already said more than once the creationists don't believe in species changing, which is false, I don't think you have an idea what creationists really define as evolution.

Who cares what creationists define as evolution? They don't get to define it.

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02
Biological Evolution - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Wildswanderer]

Who cares what creationists define as evolution? They don't get to define it.

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02
Biological Evolution - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Evolution Is Change in the Inherited Traits of a Population through Successive Generations | Learn Science at Scitable

Well if you're going to argue for something... you should know what you're arguing against perhaps? Especially if you're going to claim that the person arguing against you doesn't know what he's arguing against.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well if you're going to argue for something... you should know what you're arguing against perhaps? Especially if you're going to claim that the person arguing against you doesn't know what he's arguing against.

Yes, you should.
And you should take your own advice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, you should.
And you should take your own advice.

I don't see you taking it. You and others constantly make claims against creationists that are not accurate representations of what creationists say.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't see you taking it. You and others constantly make claims against creationists that are not accurate representations of what creationists say.

Sorry, but there's no point arguing against a straw man representation of evolution. Instead, such a representation needs to be corrected.

Here's what you said, that I was responding to here, "The depends on you your definition of evolution. Sine you have already said more than once the creationists don't believe in species changing, which is false, I don't think you have an idea what creationists really define as evolution."

Evolution has a scientific definition. You reject it. The logical conclusion is that you don't accept that organisms evolve over time. Now you say it's incorrect to say that you believe that species don't change. So, which is it then? And if you believe that species do change, what mechanism is involved in that, if you don't accept evolution?

Nobody cares what creationists define as evolution because it's irrelevant to an actual discussion about evolution and what it actually is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

His rejection of evolution.

You obviously have no idea what I believe, you just argue from ignorance.

Evolution has a scientific definition. You reject it. The logical conclusion is that you don't accept that organisms evolve over time. Now you say it's incorrect to say that you believe that species don't change. So, which is it then? And if you believe that species do change, what mechanism is involved in that, if you don't accept evolution?

Nobody cares what creationists define as evolution because it's irrelevant to an actual

Wow, close minded much?
It's extremely relevant to the discussion. No creationists deny that natural selection exists.
You really need to study up on what you're arguing against. Talk about strawmen!

 

[SkepticThinker]

You obviously have no idea what I believe, you just argue from ignorance.

I can only go by what you write here.

You said, and I quote, “See this is why the ToE is a self perpetuating myth.”


That doesn’t sound to me like you accept evolution. Does it sound like that to you?

Wow, close minded much?

It's extremely relevant to the discussion. No creationists deny that natural selection exists.

You really need to study up on what you're arguing against. Talk about strawmen!

This comment makes zero sense.

It's not close minded to reject and correct inaccurate definitions about scientific theories. Especially when someone is butchering it so badly and clearly doesn't even understand what they're even arguing against because they're confused and ignorant of the subject matter. You don't just get to make up your own definitions of scientific theories, sorry. It's bizarre that you think you should.


There are creationists who deny natural selection. I know this because I've engaged in discussions with them before (though I never actually said in my post that anybody rejects natural selection, you just pulled that out of thin air).


The only "studying up" I need here is to read your posts and reply to them - that's how this works. You state what you believe and others respond.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The only "studying up" I need here is to read your posts and reply to them - that's how this works. You state what you believe and others respond.

Lol, no you assume to know what I believe and respond to that. Show me one creationist site that claims species don't change at all. We can observe species adapting in real time. What most creationists are arguing against is the whole molecules to man hypothesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, no you assume to know what I believe and respond to that. Show me one creationist site that claims species don't change at all.

I am literally responding to the words you type, which you clearly aren't reading, given that I explained this in my very last post.

Maybe we could get back on topic now.

We can observe species adapting in real time.

Great, so you accept evolution! I guess we're done then.

What most creationists are arguing against is the whole molecules to man hypothesis.

Sorry, what?

You don't accept common ancestry? Is that it? How do you explain genetics and nested hierarchies?