• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

nPeace

Veteran Member
Unfortunately there does not appear to be much in the way of difference. You are constantly shown to be wrong, but you cannot admit it. In the case of Futuyma you used a lying source. I saw that ICR used the same argument that you did. They tried to imply that he was against the idea of evolution when he was merely supporting the modern synthesis. Instead of looking up the term at the end of that abstract it appears that you jumped to an illogical conclusion.
I have no idea what you are talking about... and since you claimed that I claimed something that you can't even point out what I claimed, I can only conclude that you make up stuff, and then make false claims.
That seems to me, a deliberate attempt to distract from the information presented to you. Once you do then, you then feel comfortable to continue.
That's a dishonest tactic... imo.

By the way, when speaking of evolution we all mean the concept of common descent. Right now it appears that all of the scientific evidence supports that concept. I do not know of any that goes against it.
We? I assume you must be speaking for yourself.
That doesn't detract from the fact that you made false claims.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I have not seen that. I have seen creationists deny that, but one could hardly call them scientists when their denial is not based upon the scientific method.
Okay. Therefore, please provide the data, which shows the scientific method applied to demonstrate that the ES is an unscientific proposal, and that the species concepts are unscientific, and irrelevant to science, and ...I'm not done yet, but let's hear those first.

They might, but what does that matter? The best source to use is the person that defined the term. Speciation is by definition macroevolution. Do you need a source? I can provide one.
So Evolution 101, and science journals are garbage?

How do you define "real time". That is not a scientific term. If you mean that we cannot observe molecule to man you live you might have a valid claim. But that hardly matters. All of the evidence supports that claim.
So why did you use the term real-time? What did you mean by... And macroevolution has been observed in real time.

They disagree about specifics, but that hardly matters again. That is how science advances. I don't think why you think this in any way can be used against evolution. By the same standards scientists probably disagree "vehemently" about many ideas that you accept.
You're right. It doesn't matter to folks who don't believe a theory that depends on philosophical debate, and clashes on what's empirical.
As regards the "ideas" I accept, they are not dependent on what "expert" think. Did you forget that?

It is not "philosophical". And yes, we do have a problem with people that deny reality due to faulty religious beliefs. It would not be a problem if they kept them private, but they don't seem to be able to do that.
I don't agree with your opinion.
 

dad

Undefeated
Then scripture is wrong.
I'll take Jesus' word for it thanks.


That's not a belief.
That's a conclusion drawn from carefull scientific analysis of the evidence.
Belief based. Carefully belief based.
And it's a conclusion that has been verified.
In your dreams doesn't count.

Your willfull ignorance on the subject will not make a difference.
You can't even post a cohesive case. Try giving us something it would be possible to be willingly ignorant about.



:rolleyes:

Right, I forgot. It's Last Thursdayism. More specifically, the denomination known as "Dadianism".[/QUOTE]
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have no idea what you are talking about... and since you claimed that I claimed something that you can't even point out what I claimed, I can only conclude that you make up stuff, and then make false claims.
That seems to me, a deliberate attempt to distract from the information presented to you. Once you do then, you then feel comfortable to continue.
That's a dishonest tactic... imo.


We? I assume you must be speaking for yourself.
That doesn't detract from the fact that you made false claims.
Please, you are the one making false claims. You also used a dishonest debating technique. You used a Gish Gallop where you claimed to "listen to the scientists". You just refuted that claim yourself. It now looks like you grabbed a series of quotes from creationist sites, which one had to admit are pretty much all lying sites. One of the quotes that you posted and did not understand was this one:

"Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form.
This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory."

That was from a paper by Futuyma. It was "your paper" you should have know who wrote it. You focused on the last sentence as shown by your bolding. I used Futuyma's name and linked an article on Synthetic Theory, also called "The New Synthesis" also called "Neo-Darwinianism". Darwin's original theory was incomplete. Darwin knew that. Everyone knew that. He knew that he could not explain some aspects of evolution. That did not mean that evolution was in doubt. Synthetic Theory explains what Darwin could not. Your own source says so.

Now why did I say that you used creationist sources? Because I found that same work quoted by various sources such as ICR and others that thought for some odd reason that it was an argument against evolution when it was an argument for one.

As I said, you should pay more attention. Your own sources refute you. One of the dangers of the Gish Gallop is that a person often does that. And by refuting one claim of yours all of them were refuted. Since it takes far too long to refute them individually one claim of a Gish Gallop being refuted refutes them all.

Try bringing up your claims one at a time. You will still lose but it won't be in such an embarrassing manner.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Okay. Therefore, please provide the data, which shows the scientific method applied to demonstrate that the ES is an unscientific proposal, and that the species concepts are unscientific, and irrelevant to science, and ...I'm not done yet, but let's hear those first.

What? You are not even asking reasonable questions. You should be asking how do I know that they are not scientists. Pretty much because all of them have to swear not to use the scientific method in their work.

So Evolution 101, and science journals are garbage?

Where do you get these crazy strawman arguments from? Your understanding appears to be "garbage" as shown by the fact that science articles that you link tend to refute your own claims.

So why did you use the term real-time? What did you mean by... And macroevolution has been observed in real time.
Okay, mea culpa, that was my fault. But this objection of yours was meaningless at any rate and you know that.

You're right. It doesn't matter to folks who don't believe a theory that depends on philosophical debate, and clashes on what's empirical.
As regards the "ideas" I accept, they are not dependent on what "expert" think. Did you forget that?

See this is why so many have a problem with you. You do not even appear to know what science is. That is why you falsely claim that this is a philosophical debate. Once again I offer to discuss the basics of science and evidence with you since you do not understand those concepts. That leads you to making false statements as above.

I don't agree with your opinion.

I know. But unlike you I can support my opinion. To date you have run away from even learning the basics.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
OK, let's compare the experts.

One side has people who actually go into the field to discover fossils, who work in labs, and that publish in peer-reviewed journals where critiques are abundant.

The other side has to sign a statement declaring one particular view is mandatory, they only criticize the work of others, they do no lab work, they lie consistently about the work of others, and they tend to publish in popular books for the propaganda value, and *anything* leading to their mandatory conclusion is considered of value.

It's clear to me which side I consider to be the real experts.
Ok, let’s see. You stated:

The other side has to sign a statement declaring one particular view is mandatory.”

In the video, the biologist who ‘sides’ with Meyer, was Richard
Sternberg. He clearly said he was not a creationist, either “old Earth” or “young Earth.”

......
Your next statement (accusation?):

they only criticize the work of others

“Only”? I think that’s simply a polemic statement.
As far as criticisms go, I’ve found many new-Darwinists criticizing other colleagues, like the “B-A-N-D” evolutionary researchers. There are a lot of arguments, as to evidence interpretations, between evolutionary biologists, themselves. I’ve been present at some of these arguments my own self.

......


they do no lab work

Another polemic statement.
I know for a certainty that Dr. Douglas Axe conducts much lab work, testing many hypotheses.

......

they lie consistently about the work of others

Another!

Then, please, show me 3. If lying is so prevalent, it should be easy to find them. Did you find any in the video? If it is so consistent, surely there were a couple in it.

......

they tend to publish in popular books for the propaganda value

(Finally! Not an ‘always’ or ‘only’)

Which ones, do you think? I found “Undeniable” and “Darwin’s Doubt”,
full of scientific facts.

......

“ *anything* leading to their mandatory conclusion is considered of value.”

anything”? (Why do you tend to use such adamant language?) Actually, I’ve read papers where ID supporters disagree w/ others of their colleagues.
And there’s this:
“ [Dr. Paul] Nelson acknowledged that his young-Earth views are unpopular with many other intelligent design advocates.[10]
Paul Nelson (creationist) - Wikipedia

Does your side have a “mandatory conclusion”? Yes it does....naturalism.
Even despite what is always discovered about complex information systems producing function.


And just to aver once again, I do not support a Young-Earth pov. I, too, find fault with some of Dr. Nelson’s writings.

Take care.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Censorship?

If anybody could demonstrably falsify evolution they'd become world famous and win a Nobel Prize. It would be a big huge deal.
This has nothing to do with falsifying evolution because -- the evidence doesn't fit the theory. What fossils and artifacts show is that something happened, something was alive but now is dead, and it also could have been an animal that has been made extinct. And evolution doesn't fit the picture, imo now. But it seems to me that -- again -- the evidence brought in as if it fits the theory just doesn't work. And some scientists, whether they believe the Bible or not is not the issue here, no longer espouse the theory.
Definition of scientific evidence by one source:
"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method." Wikipedia'
Furthermore, there are scientists who realize the theory just doesn't add up.
While I am pretty sure you will disagree or put down the scientists who disagree with the theory pertaining especially to natural selection, I have come to my own conclusions about the lack of evidence verifying the theory as I see it, and that is basically based on the comments from believers of evolution trying to show me evolution is 'true,' even though truth in the absolute sense is scientifically unverifiable, on these boards. But thank you anyway, even if we disagree.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Color me intrigued:


Please explain, without paraphrasing or plagiarizing a YEC/OEC website, and support with documentation, how apoptosis is a logical/real barrier between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

And please start by defining microevolution and macroevolution - but be forewarned, macroevolution is not an event, despite a tendency for many creationists to indicate that it is.
I too am intrigued. I would also like to see how sexual selection Is evidence against evolution as he claims.

I cannot wait to the nothing he will dazzle us with.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Declaring opposition is great, but irrelevant if they cannot offer anything of substance.

Saying that they simply 'don't believe it', as many of them do, is a good reason NOT to voice your opposition, because it makes one look like petulant child.


Provide an example please.

You are aware, are you not, that peers that review creationist pubs are required to affirm that they will either never allow anything critical of creationism to see the light of day, or that they will only endorse pro-creation stuff (while these seem to be two sides of the same coin, they differ in their 'logic')?
Seems that peer review is having problems.
Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
No, it doesn't take any faith. It's just what the evidence indicates. If the evidence were to change, or new evidence were to come to light, then we'd go with that.
Unlike religious beliefs, acceptance of evolutionary claims aren't hinged on receiving eternal life after death or getting into some god's good favour or anything and so they can be amended according to whatever the evidence indicates. We're not stucking having to believe anything that the evidence doesn't indicate, as some who adhere to ancient texts seem to have to do.
Since acceptance of reality is honest and honesty is a virtue often esteemed by many religions, it would be honest to accept the best explanations about the world. I think honesty should be explored as an option by creationists. They should try it out. See how it feels.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You would know.


I am not a scientist, but I listen to what scientist say, and what they write.
Perhaps you should do that sometimes, instead of making false statements, as though you know what you are talking about... just because they are claims you wish were true.
(I am not using any red ink, which you call green... although you won't tell me if you are color blind. I know someone who is, so I can understand, if that is the case with you. Or something is wrong with your screen. It may be bad, or the gamma may need adjusting. Whatever the case, let's see what your excuse will be. Gish Gallop? I know that posters on here can't be that ignorant, so I know that just a distinctive plea.

These are the things scientist say...
Richard Goldschmidt, argued that microevolution does not, by the sheer accumulation of small, adaptive changes, lead to novel species. In his words, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for macroevolution”.

Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate, highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.

For a number of years now, there have been debates in the biological literature about the status (i.e., whether it is necessary) of the so-called extended (evolutionary) synthesis (ES). The idea has been put forth and elaborated by a number of authors (e.g., Pigliucci and Müller 2010 and the references therein) that the time has come for a broad reevaluation of the current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).

More recently, the theory has expanded again, it is argued, to the ES, which builds on earlier work previously considered peripheral to the MS (e.g., Simpson 1944, Eldredge and Gould 1972, Gould and Lewontin 1979, parts of Fisher 1999). This expansion includes new or highly revised concepts such as multilevel selection theory, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche inheritance, facilitated variation, evolvability, and a distinction between microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes, among others.

The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...rn_Evolutionary_Theory_Explain_Macroevolution
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form.
This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge. I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.

Testing hypotheses in macroevolution - ScienceDirect
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Abstract
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.

Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).

Jeffrey S. Levinton | Department of Ecology & Evolution
Erwin Baur (1919, 1925, 1932)
Erwin Baur was certainly one of the most important architects of the Synthesis. His early death (1933) prevented him from playing a major partin the actual formation of the Synthesis, but his work made him a centralfigure of the preparatory phase: "If he had lived, he would probably be recognized now as one of the fathers of the synthetic theory of evolution inplants" (Stebbins 1980, p. 140). Baur's very popular genetics textbook Ein-fuÈhrung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre was probably one of the most influential publications that prepared the ground for the Synthesis in Germany. As early as 1919 (3rd/4th. ed.) Baur presented an evolutionary theory that was based on a synthesis of genetics, the theory of selection and a basic idea of population genetics. He was convinced that the quantity and diversity of mutations in nature is sufficient to guaranty an efficient process of selection (Baur 1919, p. 343). On the other hand, he had some doubts whether this microevolutionary mechanism is sufficient to explain macroevolution and speculated that new types of mutations might be found (Baur 1919, p. 345).In 1925 Baur presented his most important synthetic ideas in a short paperon the meaning and importance of mutations for evolution (ªDie Bedeu-tung der Mutation fuÈr das Evolutionsproblemº). Here he emphasized thatdifferences between closely related species can be explained by the accumulation of (micro-)mutations (see also Baur 1924; Mayr & Provine 1980;Harwood 1993). He demonstrated that in natural populations sufficientgenetic polymorphism (resulting from random mutations and recombina-tion) for selection to act is present. Baur had no clear notion yet of genepools, gene flow and genetic isolation but he emphasized that the (at thattime dominant) criticism of selection was unproductive. Baur clearly re-jected Lamarckian inheritance.

What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
Thank you so much for this excellent example of a Gish Gallup. I think we will all benefit for your efforts to provide examples of the deceptive practices employed to force creationism onto others and replace valid science with irrational, unsupported claims.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry, but quote mining is a dishonest way to debate. So is a Gish Gallop. And I never called red green.

Try again. Bring up your claims one at a time. Or if you like I could pick and choose a point to refute. When you do a Gish Gallop as you just did refuting one claim refutes them all. Are you sure that you want to play that game.
I think he messed up and accidentally included too much of the quoted material. It's hilarious. If you read what isn't in bold, it explains the quote mines in bold. By including it all, he presented material rejecting his own claims.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
And he also referred to Douglas Futuyma in his post. After claiming that he listened to what scientists say. Futuyma is a well respected scientist. He was arguing against the oversimplified version of evolution that used to be used and for:

Modern Synthetic theory of Evolution - Definition | Neo Darwinism Theory

Futuyma was not arguing against evolution. And he facepalmed my post. That is irony for you.
Did he claim that? That's strange. I wonder why a creationist would say he listens to scientists? The scientists all reject creationism for lack of evidence.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Where did I say anyone is arguing against evolution? Everyone on earth agrees with evolution.
This is all very confusing. Have you redefined evolution to mean breathing or are you referring to it in some other context like music? You and your church deny science and presumably you are on Earth. Though that is not the same as being grounded.
 
Top