Evolution Observed

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't think his criticism is ad hominem. It is an honest reflection of what many of us see as what you are trying to do with Raup's work.

Questioning science is the duty not just of scientists but any person that truly wants to understand it and determine if it is worth acceptance. What you are doing doesn't seem to fit into the mold of questioning so much as taking Raup's work out of context to support your belief system agenda to show the theory of evolution is wrong. I appreciate your transparency even if you didn't intend it.

Once again I am using Raup's work 'conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' to point out what he, I, and many scientists see as; conflicts between Darwin and paleontology...

If you didn't read the paper I posted the link to, and assume that it actually highlighted 'harmony between Darwin and paleontology'... I'm not the one taking his work completely out of context- to the point of sheer denial.


The fact is there are major conflicts here that have been increasingly recognized for several decades now, and of course there are many proposed solutions, many scientists looking for a fundamentally better explanation than Darwinism

insisting that the problems simply don't exist - this is a pop-science position that disagrees with both sides

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again I am using Raup's work 'conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' to point out what he, I, and many scientists see as; conflicts between Darwin and paleontology

Again, again and again . . . all the present paleontologists and related scientists acknowledge the conflicts between Darwin and contemporary Paleontology, because the knowledge of science changes over time.

You are misrepresenting Raup again, again and again when reading his entire work, as cited by others and myself.

If you didn't read the paper I posted the link to, and assume that it actually highlighted 'harmony between Darwin and paleontology'... I'm not the one taking his work completely out of context- to the point of sheer denial.

I have read the whole article. Clearly there is harmony, because both Darwin and contemporary paleontologists support the basic concepts of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin. Clearly there are numerous conflicts because the knowledge of the science of evolution changes over time.

insisting that the problems simply don't exist - this is a pop-science position that disagrees with both sides

I have never stated the problems do not exist. It is obvious because the knowledge of science changes over time unlike the ancient world views of Creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again I am using Raup's work 'conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' to point out what he, I, and many scientists see as; conflicts between Darwin and paleontology...

If you didn't read the paper I posted the link to, and assume that it actually highlighted 'harmony between Darwin and paleontology'... I'm not the one taking his work completely out of context- to the point of sheer denial.


The fact is there are major conflicts here that have been increasingly recognized for several decades now, and of course there are many proposed solutions, many scientists looking for a fundamentally better explanation than Darwinism

insisting that the problems simply don't exist - this is a pop-science position that disagrees with both sides

What are these supposed "major conflicts"? All you have demonstrated is at best an inability to understand the work of Raup and others. Once more punctuated equilibrium is just a refinement on Darwin's original theory. No one in the world of the sciences think that Darwin's original idea was flawless. It was a major advancement in the world of biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again I am using Raup's work 'conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' to point out what he, I, and many scientists see as; conflicts between Darwin and paleontology...

If you didn't read the paper I posted the link to, and assume that it actually highlighted 'harmony between Darwin and paleontology'... I'm not the one taking his work completely out of context- to the point of sheer denial.


The fact is there are major conflicts here that have been increasingly recognized for several decades now, and of course there are many proposed solutions, many scientists looking for a fundamentally better explanation than Darwinism

insisting that the problems simply don't exist - this is a pop-science position that disagrees with both sides

You are misusing Raup's work to make it seem as if he is against the theory of evolution. You are taking it out of context. You are leaving out the context that Raup is not denying evolution or the theory of evolution. I can't be more clear than that.

Are you a scientist? If you are, I don't get that from anything of yours that I have been reading. Who are the many other scientists that you are claiming are denying the theory of evolution?

I can't believe you read the paper. It looks like you just read the quote mines and skipped the paper, considering that you have missed entirely what Raup said in that work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What are these supposed "major conflicts"? All you have demonstrated is at best an inability to understand the work of Raup and others. Once more punctuated equilibrium is just a refinement on Darwin's original theory. No one in the world of the sciences think that Darwin's original idea was flawless. It was a major advancement in the world of biology.

Up until recently, I have been willing to accept that he has read and understood the paper, however, incorrectly he may be representing it, but more and more I am withdrawing my benefit of the doubt, it feels like he hasn't read it and is only expanding on the quote mines of fellow creationists.

 

[YmirGF]

Up until recently, I have been willing to accept that he has read and understood the paper, however, incorrectly he may be representing it, but more and more I am withdrawing my benefit of the doubt, it feels like he hasn't read it and is only expanding on the quote mines of fellow creationists.

*falls off chair in shock*

Would a creationist actually do something that shallow?

Seriously, one need look no further into the Creationist camp than to consider the brilliant scientific contributions her leading scientists have provided in their ground breaking research studies. Like, their hundreds and hundreds of scholarly, peer reviewed, investigations must be in serious contention for a Nobel. Those Evolutionists are just jealous because they only have a few scientists gnawing on old bones.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

*falls off chair in shock*

Would a creationist actually do something that shallow?

Seriously, one need look no further into the Creationist camp than to consider the brilliant scientific contributions her leading scientists have provided in their ground breaking research studies. Like, their hundreds and hundreds of scholarly, peer reviewed, investigations must be in serious contention for a Nobel. Those Evolutionists are just jealous because they only have a few scientists gnawing on old bones.

I hope some of them do, but I'm never surprised by the evidence indicating they don't read what they argue against.

Considering that Darwin drew immediate attention to the problem and Raup is just updating the problem, it could be that Raup could have entitled the paper "The continuing agreement between Darwin and paleontology--an old problem" and said the same thing, but not leaving a toehold for creationists to grasp onto and twist. Nah, that wouldn't stop them.

 

[YmirGF]

I hope some of them do, but I'm never surprised by the evidence indicating they don't read what they argue against.

Considering that Darwin drew immediate attention to the problem and Raup is just updating the problem, it could be that Raup could have entitled the paper "The continuing agreement between Darwin and paleontology--an old problem" and said the same thing, but not leaving a toehold for creationists to grasp onto and twist. Nah, that wouldn't stop them.

Well, it's not like they have much material to work with, so anything is fair game, I suppose.
And here I thought that the Dover trial had put a rather large stake into the heart of Creationism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are misusing Raup's work to make it seem as if he is against the theory of evolution. You are taking it out of context. You are leaving out the context that Raup is not denying evolution or the theory of evolution. I can't be more clear than that.

Are you a scientist? If you are, I don't get that from anything of yours that I have been reading. Who are the many other scientists that you are claiming are denying the theory of evolution?

I can't believe you read the paper. It looks like you just read the quote mines and skipped the paper, considering that you have missed entirely what Raup said in that work.

and again
The paper is titled 'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' it discusses, unsurprisingly, conflicts between Darwin and paleontology... so I am using it to highlight, guess what? conflicts between Darwin and paleontology

I am quite curious how you interpret the context of the paper as actually highlighting - harmony between Darwin and paleontology
can you expand on how you are reaching this interpretation?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

and again
The paper is titled 'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' it discusses, unsurprisingly, conflicts between Darwin and paleontology... so I am using it to highlight, guess what? conflicts between Darwin and paleontology

I am quite curious how you interpret the context of the paper as actually highlighting - harmony between Darwin and paleontology
can you expand on how you are reaching this interpretation?

How do you not understand the difference between "Darwin" and "evolution" yet?

 

[shunyadragon]

and again
The paper is titled 'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' it discusses, unsurprisingly, conflicts between Darwin and paleontology... so I am using it to highlight, guess what? conflicts between Darwin and paleontology

I am quite curious how you interpret the context of the paper as actually highlighting - harmony between Darwin and paleontology
can you expand on how you are reaching this interpretation?

Again, there are obvious conflicts between Darwin's conclusions than contemporary Paleontology, no problem, because obviously the knowledge of the science of evolution advances, just as there are conflicts with Newtonian Physics and contemporary physics.

The science of evolution that Charles Darwin proposed is in harmony with contemporary paleontology in that Darwin described the basic process over time of evolution in response to change for the survival of the species, and demonstrated evolution of similar species in response to the influence of different environments and isolation. He made predictions concerning what future scientists would discover as evidence for the science of evolution. He admitted that his evidence was limited, and subject to further change of the knowledge of the science of evolution.

Can you distinguish between Charles Darwin and evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, there are obvious conflicts between Darwin's conclusions than contemporary Paleontology, no problem, because obviously the knowledge of the science of evolution advances, just as there are conflicts with Newtonian Physics and contemporary physics.

Exactly, and that's why Newtonian physics is fundamentally inadequate in explaining physical reality today, just as Darwinism is for life, and for the same reason:

I agree with Darwin's original premise- that the development of life probably follows the same general mechanism as the physics and chemistry which came before it. In his day that meant the Newtonian/Victorian model: simple 'immutable' laws + random action across lots of time and space. Today that means according to a vast array of deeper, extremely finely tuned instructions, predetermining how, where and when development takes place.

The science of evolution that Charles Darwin proposed is in harmony with contemporary paleontology in that Darwin described the basic process over time of evolution in response to change for the survival of the species, and demonstrated evolution of similar species in response to the influence of different environments and isolation. He made predictions concerning what future scientists would discover as evidence for the science of evolution. He admitted that his evidence was limited, and subject to further change of the knowledge of the science of evolution.

Can you distinguish between Charles Darwin and evolution.

Yes, so did Raup

"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."

By this definition you, I , Raup, Intelligent design, and Genesis are all in agreement,

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Exactly, and that's why Newtonian physics is fundamentally inadequate in explaining physical reality today, just as Darwinism is for life, and for the same reason:

I agree with Darwin's original premise- that the development of life probably follows the same general mechanism as the physics and chemistry which came before it. In his day that meant the Newtonian/Victorian model: simple 'immutable' laws + random action across lots of time and space. Today that means according to a vast array of deeper, extremely finely tuned instructions, predetermining how, where and when development takes place.



Yes, so did Raup

"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."

By this definition you, I , Raup, Intelligent design, and Genesis are all in agreement,

Exactly why is Newtonian Physics fundamentally inadequate in explaining our physical reality? This would imply an explanation that is non-physics. Can you give me an example of any event in reality that exists outside of the laws of physics? If you can, then Oslo is waiting. Don

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Exactly why is Newtonian Physics fundamentally inadequate in explaining our physical reality? This would imply an explanation that is non-physics. Can you give me an example of any event in reality that exists outside of the laws of physics? If you can, then Oslo is waiting. Don

? If you can explain sub atomic physics/ quantum mechanics using only Newtonian physics... then they'll give you a prize! much easier to get one just being a liberal politician though..

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly, and that's why Newtonian physics is fundamentally inadequate in explaining physical reality today, just as Darwinism is for life, and for the same reason:,

There is no such thing as Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism. They are worn out Creationist and layman terms, and not used by science.

I agree with Darwin's original premise- that the development of life probably follows the same general mechanism as the physics and chemistry which came before it. In his day that meant the Newtonian/Victorian model: simple 'immutable' laws + random action across lots of time and space. Today that means according to a vast array of deeper, extremely finely tuned instructions, predetermining how, where and when development takes place.

Darwin's original premise is in harmony with contemporary Paleontology, but the knowledge of evolution has advanced and changed as Darwin predicted.

Yes, so did Raup

"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."

Evolution is not defined 'simply as change.'
I believe in evolution that it falsifies that change actually took place over the history of life on earth including the processes of the origins of life, and is an ongoing process of continuous change over time and today. I believe Raup holds this view. You appear to describing the false Creationist view that micro evolution 'change' is observed, but macro evolution is not falsified by science. This a contrived artificial distinct. The science of evolution does not make any such distinction, and there is no evidence for this distinction,

By this definition you, I , Raup, Intelligent design, and Genesis are all in agreement,

I am in general agreement with Raup that we both support evolution as a science, but NO, not Intelligent Design nor Genesis. No agreement there. Again it is extremely odd and contradictory for an atheist to assert harmony with Genesis when there is none.

Quoting Raup concerning the number of intermediate fossils in not correct. There are literally thousands of intermediate fossils discovered since Charles Darwin proposed the basis for the science of evolution, and more being discovered constantly.

As per your assertions that randomness, no regardless of your assertions randomness is not observed in the outcomes of cause and effect relationships of of macro natural events. The variation in the outcomes of cause and effect in natural events has no causal influence on the outcome. We have had billions of years for the Natural Laws, Natural pocesses and a favorable environment for life to form and evolve naturally. Natural Laws are the only known cause, and limit the range of possible outcomes. We do not live in a chancy random universe, I like Einstein's description that "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice," and throws of the dice are not random. Einstein's God is not a Theistic God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no such thing as Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism - Wikipedia

They are worn out Creationist and layman terms, and not used by science.

We agree it's not a very scientific theory, but Dawkins uses the term often

I believe in evolution that it falsifies that change actually took place over the history of life on earth including the processes of the origins of life, and is an ongoing process of continuous change over time and today. I believe Raup holds this view. You appear to describing the false Creationist view that micro evolution 'change' is observed, but macro evolution is not falsified by science. This a contrived artificial distinct. The science of evolution does not make any such distinction, and there is no evidence for this distinction,

The empirical science shows that bacteria remain bacteria, gaps in the record remain gaps in the record, modelling reflects the limitations of adaptation.

I agree with the science, as do most people, but it is Darwinists who must speculate that the direct results are misleading, that the theory still works, in spite of it. That a single cell morphed into a human being through millions of random mutations- this is not something we can test, observe, repeat, measure, there is no way around that. We have only uncovered severe hurdles to this

I am in agreement with Raup, but NO, not Intelligent Design nor Genesis. No agreement there. Again it is extremely odd and contradictory for an atheist to assert harmony with Genesis when there is none.

as above, simply defining evolution as change, we all agree evolution occurred. Genesis does not claim all life appeared at the same time, it explicitly describes a progression, with life appearing in distinct sudden stages, a 'punctuated equilibrium' you might say, beginning in the ocean and culminating later with humanity-

lucky guess?

perhaps, perhaps not

Quoting Raup concerning the number of intermediate fossils in not correct. There are literally thousands of intermediate fossils discovered since Charles Darwin proposed the basis for the science of evolution, and more being discovered constantly.

aaand back to the quote, you'd have to have argued this with him.

"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time" Raup

and since this time, even more once 'immutable' transitions like dogs from wolves, birds from dinos, are being increasingly called into question

As per your assertions that randomness, no regardless of your assertions randomness is not observed in the outcomes of cause and effect relationships of of macro natural events. The variation in the outcomes of cause and effect in natural events has no causal influence on the outcome. We have had billions of years for the Natural Laws, Natural pocesses and a favorable environment for life to form and evolve naturally. Natural Laws are the only known cause, and limit the range of possible outcomes. We do not live in a chancy random universe, I like Einstein's description that "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." Einstein's God is not a Theistic God.

Specified information is the only known cause of natural events occurring, and intelligent design is the only known cause of information systems being originated

Asserting that they can ALSO occur spontaneously, without design.... it's not technically impossible, but that is the unsupported philosophical speculation here.

extraordinary claims..

 

[shunyadragon]

Neo-Darwinism - Wikipedia



We agree it's not a very scientific theory, but Dawkins uses the term often

It is not whether it is a scientific theory or not. Darwinism is a meaningless term.

The empirical science shows that bacteria remain bacteria, gaps in the record remain gaps in the record, modelling reflects the limitations of adaptation.

Phony fallacious Creationist argument from ignorance, and not science.

I agree with the science, but it is Darwinists who must speculate that the direct results are misleading, that the theory still works, in spite of it. That a single cell morphed into a human being through millions of random mutations- this is not something we can test, observe, repeat, measure, there is no way around that.

There are no observed patterns randomness in mutations. The rest is Creationist Bull hokey.

[qupte]
as above, simply defining evolution as change, we all agree evolution occurred.

The problem is evolution is not simply defined as change.

Genesis describes a changing composition of life, starting in the ocean and culminating later with humanity- lucky guess or not.

This too simplistic description of the mythology of Genesis, which has no relevance nor validity in science.

aaand back to the quote, you'd have to have argued this with him.

"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time" Raup

I do need to argue with Raup, he is dead, and by the way dead wrong as far as the evidence there have been discovered literally tens of thousands of intermediaries discovered since Charles Darwin.

and since this time, even more once 'immutable' transitions like dogs from wolves, birds from dinos, are being increasingly called into question.

Bogus assertion with out references. Do you realize the fallacy you are resorting to.

Specified information is the only known cause of natural events occurring, and intelligent design is the only known cause of information systems being originated.

Again, other than human use if information for design, there is no known evidence for Intelligent Design in nature.

Asserting that they can ALSO occur spontaneously, without design.... it's not technically impossible, but that is the unsupported philosophical speculation here.

extraordinary claims..

No philosohical speculation here, but Intelligent Design involves only Theological speculation.
Science nor do I assert anything is spontaneous in nature, (without cause). Simply there is absolutely no falsified evidence for any form of design in the cause of the outcomes of cause and effect events.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Creationist view that micro evolution 'change' is observed, but macro evolution is not falsified by science. This a contrived artificial distinct. The science of evolution does not make any such distinction
.

Well there's your trouble. Classical physics likewise made no distinction between the superficial functions of nature, and the underlying causes for them

Superficially, apples still simply fall from trees
and genetic apples fall not far from their trees also, that is true

But If you understand why trying to explain how gravity works with classical physics, was doomed to paradoxical failure.
then you understand why adaptation can likewise never explain evolution

Both are features of an underlying design, not a design mechanisms for that feature- intuitive as that extrapolation may seem at first

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is not whether it is a scientific theory or not. Darwinism is a meaningless term.



Phony fallacious Creationist argument from ignorance, and not science.



The problem is evolution is not simply defined as change.


This too simplistic description of the mythology of Genesis, which has not relevance nor validity in science.




I do need to argue with Raup, he is dead, and by the way dead wrong as far as the evidence there have been discovered literally tens of thousands of intermediaries discovered since Charles Darwin.



Bogus assertion with out references. Do you realize the fallacy you are resorting to.



Again, other than human use if information for design, there is no known evidence for Intelligent Design in nature.



No philosohical speculation here, but Intelligent Design involves only Theological speculation.
Science nor do I assert anything is spontaneous in nature, (without cause). Simply there is absolutely no falsified evidence for any form of design in the cause of the outcomes of cause and effect events.

I didn't think you'd run out of substantive arguments quite this quickly

"Intelligent Design involves only Theological speculation."

Again what Hoyle said about the primeval atom. You only betray an ideological bias by doing this. Dawkins concedes the great intellectual fulfillment Darwinism gives him as an atheist. That's nice for him, but it doesn't change the science, or lack thereof, either way

If Darwinism is scientifically sound it should be able to stand on it's own substantive arguments, not personal attacks

If you unearth the Rosetta stone and conclude it was intelligently designed, is this a theological speculation?

 

[shunyadragon]

"Intelligent Design involves only Theological speculation."

Not an argument, simply a fact that the only ones that argue 'Intelligent Design' are Theists without any objective verifiable evidence nor a falsifiable hypothesis.

Again what Hoyle said about the primeval atom. You only betray an ideological bias by doing this. Dawkins concedes the great intellectual fulfillment Darwinism gives him as an atheist. That's nice for him, but it doesn't change the science, or lack thereof, either way.

Hoyle is long dead. Atheism requires a philosophical assumption not supported by science. Dawkins claim is his own philosophical/theological belief, and not science. I am a Theist and a scientist, and do not justify my theism one way or another on science, except that the Baha'i teachings are to accept science as the progressive human knowledge of the nature of our existence, and scripture concerning the nature of our physical existence must understood in the light of science.

If Darwinism is scientifically sound it should be able to stand on it's own substantive arguments, not personal attacks.

The science of evolution does indeed stand on its own regardless of your theist personal attacks, thank goodness.

If you unearth the Rosetta stone and conclude it was intelligently designed, is this a theological speculation?

Already covered this worn out old repeated argument with no substantial meaning. The Rosetta Stone is objectively determined to be of human made.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not an argument, simply a fact that the only ones that argue 'Intelligent Design' are Theists without any objective verifiable evidence nor a falsifiable hypothesis.

Dawkins himself acknowledges the possibility that life was put here by alien intelligence, other atheists like Andre Linde - principle in modern inflationary theory, speculate that the universe was also a product of 'alien' ID of some kind. Are those theistic arguments?

Likewise non theists overwhelmingly support Darwinian evolution with God having no role. Neither belief should bias the objective science should they?

Hoyle is long dead. Atheism requires a philosophical assumption not supported by science. Dawkins claim is his own philosophical/theological belief, and not science. I am a Theist and a scientist, and do not justify my theism one way or another on science, except that the Baha'i teachings are to accept science as the progressive human knowledge of the nature of our existence, and scripture concerning the nature of our physical existence must understood in the light of science.

Sure, nature is the executor of God's laws as Galileo said. But theist or atheist, the laws of nature very precisely predetermined the development of many natural phenomena. I don't make an exception for life. i.e. the implications of life developing according to predetermined plans, are as easy to fit into an atheist model as the rest of nature. It would need some sort of infinite probability machine to write all teh laws of course, but that's not a leap of faith not already taken.

point being again, as with Hoyle, we should not allow our personal feelings about the apparent implications of a theory, to bias the objectivity of it. If predetermination or ID implies God made us the way he wanted to, I have no bias against this- do you?

The science of evolution does indeed stand on its own regardless of your theist personal attacks, thank goodness.

Like most Darwinists, I think you are a perfectly intelligent, honest, rational person, capable of critical thought, who is ultimately interested in knowing the truth, not merely supporting a preconceived belief.
i.e. I do not and have not attacked your intellect in any way

If you can state the same, then we can wipe the slate clean and stick to substance, deal?

Already covered this worn out old repeated argument with no substantial meaning. The Rosetta Stone is objectively determined to be of human made.

Okay- so if it were found on Mars? How about if SETI detected a complex mathematical sequence coming from the Andromeda Galaxy? would that be human? or a theological argument?