75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[blü 2]

I posted it in a way to show that there are conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology. period. You can disagree with me, Raup, and many other scientists on this, it's an interesting discussion to have- simply calling each other liars is not.

But Raup doesn't argue against evolution as such, or common origin as such, and he accepts the theory of evolution in substance.

The point he made was that 'natural selection' as the means by which new species come about doesn't account for nearly as much of the fossil record as had been expected, viewed from Darwin's starting point. He attributed some speciation to other causes, all within science. Eldredge and Gould did a similar thing with punctuated equilibrium (1972) though this is now considered too narrow in its proposed list of causes of speciation.

I've said it many times, maybe not to you, this is not a slam dunk argument against evolution.

Not only that, it's not an argument against evolution at all.

It's just one of several lines of evidence that point away from Darwinism, taken all together yes I think there is a very sound argument against it, but we're dealing with an inherently speculative subject

Goodness, why don't you read up on what Raup said instead of reciting what creo sites say?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or the Flying Spaghetti Multiverse, - sure, any of these are less improbable than it simply 'evolving' itself through blind chance

Actually I totally disagree with you. With sufficient knowledge of the science behind the theory of evolution, it is blindingly obvious that it is immeasurably simpler than any supposition of a uncreated-but-amazingly-sophisticated-God-(or-Spaghetti-Monster)-with no beginning-an-no-ending-but-inexplicably-changes-mid-whenever-to-create-something-it-never-knew-before. Oh, and to suddenly impose what it never knew -- and ending!

Yes, it's hard to see how it all started, but the "creative God" scenario is monumentally more pure fiction and pure speculation that Evolution is.

But all those who adamantly refuse to (or an unable to) learn science will never be able to understand that. And so will have nothing to fall back on but their "miracle of creation."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But Raup doesn't argue against evolution as such, or common origin as such, and he accepts the theory of evolution in substance.

Agreed
Though as above he repeatedly defines evolution as merely 'change' by which definition you, me, Raup and Genesis are all in agreement.

He does see Darwinism playing a role yes, that does't change the validity of the observation, the fossil record fell significantly short of Darwinian expectations and this is generally overlooked in pop science


The point he made was that 'natural selection' as the means by which new species come about doesn't account for nearly as much of the fossil record as had been expected, viewed from Darwin's starting point. He attributed some speciation to other causes, all within science. Eldredge and Gould did a similar thing with punctuated equilibrium (1972) though this is now considered too narrow in its proposed list of causes of speciation.
Not only that, it's not an argument against evolution at all.
Goodness, why don't you read up on what Raup said instead of reciting what creo sites say?

I used to live near his museum- home to Sue the T Rex, I visited it a lot, became interested in his position- I posted the entire paper earlier.

The whole point of quoting him is that he was not a 'creationist',

 

[Guy Threepwood]

all those who adamantly refuse to (or an unable to) learn science will never be able to understand

sticks and stones, claims of intellectual superiority, do not a scientific argument make- they only reveal an inherent bias, a disdain for other beliefs

Any substantive argument for your belief, I'd be far more interested in hearing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point he made was that 'natural selection' as the means by which new species come about doesn't account for nearly as much of the fossil record as had been expected, viewed from Darwin's starting point. He attributed some speciation to other causes, all within science. Eldredge and Gould did a similar thing with punctuated equilibrium (1972) though this is now considered too narrow in its proposed list of causes of speciation.
Not only that, it's not an argument against evolution at all.
Goodness, why don't you read up on what Raup said instead of reciting what creo sites say?

I used to live near his museum- home to Sue the dinosaur, I visited it a lot, became interested in his position- I posted the entire paper earlier.

The whole point of quoting him is that he was not a 'creationist',[/QUOTE]

No, he pointed out Darwin's slow and steady evolution was not supported by the fossil record. The fossil record shows that evolution occurs largely in fits and starts. Even with quote mining your claim will be very difficult to support.

 

[blü 2]

I used to live near his museum- home to Sue the T Rex, I visited it a lot, became interested in his position- I posted the entire paper earlier.

The whole point of quoting him is that he was not a 'creationist',

And the whole point of my previous post was that you say his work attacks the theory of evolution whereas on the exact contrary it advances it.

And incidentally, 'Darwinism' is a cheap shot not worthy of you. You know perfectly well that the theory of evolution has changed in many ways since 1859, all of them affirming the basic tenets but making our understanding of it broader and deeper.

And it remains the case, as I've also mentioned before, that 'creation science' has never landed even the tiniest little scientific blow on the theory of evolution despite having over fifty years to do so. That's because 'creation science' doesn't do science, isn't it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And the whole point of my previous post was that you say his work attacks the theory of evolution whereas on the exact contrary it advances it.

And incidentally, 'Darwinism' is a cheap shot not worthy of you. You know perfectly well that the theory of evolution has changed in many ways since 1859, all of them affirming the basic tenets but making our understanding of it broader and deeper.

It's hard to imagine how the evidence could have unfolded much more contrary to the theory

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, that was the name of the paper from a renowned paleontologist, hardly a cheap shot

And it remains the case, as I've also mentioned before, that 'creation science' has never landed even the tiniest little scientific blow on the theory of evolution despite having over fifty years to do so. That's because 'creation science' doesn't do science, isn't it?

From the starting point of the record in 1859- Darwinists predicted that the record would be smoothed out, the apparent gaps, jumps, would be filled in and revealed as mere artifacts of an incomplete record

Skeptics predicted the exact opposite, that they were real, and that they would only become better defined as more fossils were found.

Remind me which prediction was validated. Punctuated equilibrium and exaptation finally conceded what skeptics predicted all along. Not only did life not evolve by slow steady increments of adaptation as once believed, it's simply impossible- the irreducible complexity of the eye is just one of countless examples.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's hard to imagine how the evidence could have unfolded much more contrary to the theory

You're dishonestly spinning facts that ran contrary to Darwin's originally proposed theory as if they run contrary to the theory of evolution - despite the fact that said facts have already been incorporated into the theory, and that's why we refer to it as the theory of evolution and not Darwinism any more.

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, that was the name of the paper from a renowned paleontologist, hardly a cheap shot

I'm pleased you're able to read and understand the title of a paper. Any chance you understand the content?

From the starting point of the record in 1859- Darwinists predicted that the record would be smoothed out, the apparent gaps, jumps, would be filled in and revealed as mere artifacts of an incomplete record

Skeptics predicted the exact opposite, that they were real, and that they would only become better defined as more fossils were found.

Remind me which prediction was validated. Punctuated equilibrium and exaptation finally conceded what skeptics predicted all along. Not only did life not evolve by slow steady increments of adaptation as once believed, it's simply impossible- the irreducible complexity of the eye is just one of countless examples.

Once again dishonestly spinning facts (and outright lying). What Darwin predicted was that evolution would produce gradual change, and what was found is that evolution produced change in a punctuated fashion. Notice the similarity between the two? Evolution. It's not a contradiction of the theory of evolution - it's a contradiction of a specific detail of how Darwin originally proposed the theory. Please try to learn this very simple distinction.

And irreducible complexity has already been utterly refuted. The eye is demonstrably not irreducibly complex.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

It really would help your cause if you didn't rely on arguments that were refuted ten years ago.

NOTE: I think Guy has me on "ignore", so if someone could just quote this to him that'd be great.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're dishonestly spinning facts that ran contrary to Darwin's originally proposed theory as if they run contrary to the theory of evolution - despite the fact that said facts have already been incorporated into the theory, and that's why we refer to it as the theory of evolution and not Darwinism any more.

"facts that ran contrary to Darwin's originally proposed theory"
^

exactly- this is what I am pointing out, once more, no need for name calling- that's never a great argument for anything.

Raup repeatedly defines evolution as 'simply change' by which definition you, I, Raup and Genesis are not in disagreement

I'm pleased you're able to read and understand the title of a paper. Any chance you understand the content?

Strangely enough, it points out several conflicts between Darwin and paleontology...

Once again dishonestly spinning facts (and outright lying).


NOTE: I think Guy has me on "ignore", so if someone could just quote this to him that'd be great.

I generally put anyone on ignore that resorts to name calling, I'm not offended, it's just not very interesting, and not usually worth engaging.

But for once just try giving a substantive argument of your own without the insults- you sound like a reasonably intelligent honest person to me- give it a try

in your own words, how do you think an eye can evolve from scratch one mutation at a time?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

exactly- this is what I am pointing out, once more, no need for name calling- that's never a great argument for anything.

So you admit that you're not actually presenting an argument against evolutionary theory and/or common descent, then?

Raup repeatedly defines evolution as 'simply change' by which definition you, I, Raup and Genesis are not in disagreement

The question is, are you misrepresenting Raup's work by implying it indicates something contrary to evolutionary theory and specifically common descent (which I assume you disagree with)?

Strangely enough, it points out several conflicts between Darwin and paleontology...

And your understanding of the significance and meaning of that is...?

I generally put anyone on ignore that resorts to name calling, I'm not offended, it's just not very interesting, and not usually worth engaging.

I make a point of not calling names. Using appropriate nouns, on the other hand...

But for once just try giving a substantive argument of your own without the insults- you sound like a reasonably intelligent honest person to me- give it a try

Quote a single instance of me insulting you.

in your own words, how do you think an eye can evolve from scratch one mutation at a time?

Starting with a small patch of light sensitive cells, which evolved into a cup-like shape that could thereby detect the direction of light, the cup continued to indent and then develop a pinhole allowing greater directional light detection, the indent then developed to be filled with fluid and a lens developed allowing the light to be focused through the indent to the light-sensitive cells at the back of the cup.

Every step of this process can be found in creatures today.

 

[blü 2]

It's hard to imagine how the evidence could have unfolded much more contrary to the theory

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, that was the name of the paper from a renowned paleontologist, hardly a cheap shot.

First, it was your use of the word 'Darwinism' that was the cheap shot.

Second, there's no conflict between the theory of evolution and paleontology because the theory of evolution was corrected in the light of the new evidence, and will be corrected in many ways again. All conclusions of science are tentative for exactly that reason ─ in any conflict between scientific theory and fact, fact wins, and the science is made more accurate accordingly. As you know, this attention to fact, constant rechecking and willingness to revise distinguish science from, for example, creationism.

Remind me which prediction was validated. Punctuated equilibrium and exaptation finally conceded what skeptics predicted all along.

Science is conducted skeptically, again unlike creationism. No surprise that it searches out and essays to fix to its own errors, misemphases and omissions (again unlike creationism).

Not only did life not evolve by slow steady increments of adaptation as once believed

You only know that because science told you. 'Creation science' didn't have a clue. It still believes in speciation by magic.

it's simply impossible- the irreducible complexity of the eye is just one of countless examples.

There are no extant examples of 'irreducible complexity'. There never were, as you know from the evidence at the Dover trial. The evolution of the eye, which has occurred several distinct times, is well understood in evolutionary terms, whatever Answers in Genesis might pretend.

Do you seriously think the eye developed by magic?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First, it was your use of the word 'Darwinism' that was the cheap shot.

wiki

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory,

Second, there's no conflict between the theory of evolution and paleontology because the theory of evolution was corrected in the light of the new evidence, and will be corrected in many ways again. All conclusions of science are tentative for exactly that reason ─ in any conflict between scientific theory and fact, fact wins, and the science is made more accurate accordingly. As you know, this attention to fact, constant rechecking and willingness to revise distinguish science from, for example, creationism.

depending on how we define it, we all agree on evolution, and I agree with Raup here

Raup: Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question.

Science is conducted skeptically, again unlike creationism. No surprise that it searches out and essays to fix to its own errors, misemphases and omissions (again unlike creationism).
You only know that because science told you. 'Creation science' didn't have a clue. It still believes in speciation by magic.

The primeval atom was labeled 'religious pseudoscience' by academic scientists, while the bones of Piltdown man were declared by the highest authorities to 'belong together without question'

So I am less interested in what is 'scientific', far more interested in what is actually true

There are no extant examples of 'irreducible complexity'. There never were, as you know from the evidence at the Dover trial. The evolution of the eye, which has occurred several distinct times, is well understood in evolutionary terms, whatever Answers in Genesis might pretend.

If you understand it well, give it your best shot, how does an eye develop one mutation at a time?

I've never read Answers in Genesis, if people like to call anyone who questions Darwinism a 'creationist' - I can't really help any confusion they may be imposing on themselves.

Do you seriously think the eye developed by magic?

no, by predetermined design.

A rabbit appearing in a hat by spontaneous fluke is 'magic', simply being put there on purpose- not so much!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

wiki

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory,

I notice how you abruptly cut off this wiki-page's description (and didn't provide a link so people would be less likely to check your accuracy). Here's the rest of the heading (emphasis mine):


Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. It subsequently referred to the specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier, or the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's and of his predecessors' work—in place of other theories, including divine designand extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[4] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called "the eclipse of Darwinism," scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanismswhich eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[5]

While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term "Darwinism" as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]

SOURCE: Darwinism - Wikipedia


How weird that you deliberately left out the parts of the description that specifically detail how the term is mis-used by creationists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

depending on how we define it, we all agree on evolution, and I agree with Raup here

Raup: Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question.

It is against forum rules to quote work exterior to RF without providing a proper reference or citation (emphasis mine):

7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).
SOURCE: RF Rules

The question is whether simply saying "Raup" qualifies as "proper reference" or "citation". Perhaps a moderator could clarify?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

sticks and stones, claims of intellectual superiority, do not a scientific argument make- they only reveal an inherent bias, a disdain for other beliefs

Any substantive argument for your belief, I'd be far more interested in hearing.

That, I'm afraid, is NOT a true statement. The "substantive argument" IS THE SCIENCE. I am not about to try to type all of the science pertaining to evolution here, because it is already available elsewhere -- and if you really "more interested in hearing," you've had all this time to simply go and find it yourself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That, I'm afraid, is NOT a true statement. The "substantive argument" IS THE SCIENCE. I am not about to try to type all of the science pertaining to evolution here, because it is already available elsewhere -- and if you really "more interested in hearing," you've had all this time to simply go and find it yourself.

I've seen it, and like most people, I'm not too impressed-

but I'm interested in what you find so impressive

How about just one part, what line of evidence do you personally find most compelling and why?

 

[Polymath257]

*** Moderation Post ***

Whether a quote is properly referenced is determined (as all reports are) by a consensus of moderators. We take overall context into account in any such determination.

If you feel a rule has been broken, please feel free to submit a report.

 

[blü 2]

wiki
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory,

And that's not your problem as a creationist. Instead your problem is the modern theory of evolution, which continues to be modified and expanded. When you crow that Darwinism has been modified, you simply demonstrate your ignorance of how science works and what science actually says at any point.

Raup does not weaken the case for evolution. He never pretends to do so. Instead his views lead to modifications which strengthen the theory of evolution.

The primeval atom was labeled 'religious pseudoscience' by academic scientists, while the bones of Piltdown man were declared by the highest authorities to 'belong together without question'

So what? Science discovered and science fixed the problem.

if people like to call anyone who questions Darwinism a 'creationist' - I can't really help any confusion they may be imposing on themselves.

So what do you say happened instead of evolution, as science understands it in 2018?

How do you account for speciation? Genera? Orders? Kingdoms?

By multiple abiogeneses? By magic? How?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And that's not your problem as a creationist. Instead your problem is the modern theory of evolution, which continues to be modified and expanded. When you crow that Darwinism has been modified, you simply demonstrate your ignorance of how science works and what science actually says at any point.

Darwinism was 'modified' from predicting that the gaps, jumps in the fossil record would get smoothed out over time-- to conceding what skeptics predicted all along, the exact opposite- that these phenomena were real and would become ever more starkly defined in the record.

As global cooling was 'modified' to become global warming, it's hardly an insignificant modification!

Raup does not weaken the case for evolution. He never pretends to do so. Instead his views lead to modifications which strengthen the theory of evolution.

Yes, and you, me , Raup, and Genesis still agree on what Raup repeatedly defines as evolution: simply change

So what? Science discovered and science fixed the problem.

after a mere 40 years of barking up the wrong tree, a little more attention to the method, less on preferred ideological conclusions could have saved a lot of time and confusion-

So what do you say happened instead of evolution, as science understands it in 2018?

How do you account for speciation? Genera? Orders? Kingdoms?

By multiple abiogeneses? By magic? How?

Darwinian evolution made perfect sense in a pre quantum, classical, reductionist, Victorian age model of reality- where a handful of simple laws+ lots of time and space to randomly bump around in, could account for all physical reality-
when notions of deeper, hidden, guiding instructions- being required to predetermine development... were still considered religious pseudoscience.

Darwin sensibly proposed that life probably developed by a similar general mechanism to the physics and chemistry that came before it. I agree, only today that means according to highly specific instructions- information at the quantum level. I see no reason to believe that development suddenly reverts back to a simplistic Victorian model at the first replicator, We already know that 'random' mutations are taking place at the quantum level.

Darwin and his followers all saw gradual incremental change as crucial to the theory, for very sound logical reasons- But the increasingly staccato 21st C fossil record is just one line of evidence that points increasingly away from Darwinism, direct experimentation and mathematical models concur; adaptation is a limited and essential design feature, not a comprehensive design mechanism

 

[blü 2]

Darwinism was 'modified' from predicting that the gaps, jumps in the fossil record would get smoothed out over time-- to conceding what skeptics predicted all along, the exact opposite- that these phenomena were real and would become ever more starkly defined in the record.

So what? That's just science in action, checking, rechecking, searching for corrections, making them. How many times do you have to be told that? You're living in the scientific past, in Darwin's case 157 years in the past.

As global cooling was 'modified' to become global warming, it's hardly an insignificant modification!

So what? You're still living in the past.

Yes, and you, me , Raup, and Genesis still agree on what Raup repeatedly defines as evolution: simply change

No, not simple change ─ change mapped, described and explained. You're still living in the past.

Now you were about to tell me where species (&c) really come from. What's the answer?