Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[Audie]

I don't know how much of that is accurate, but I never expected
Darwin to be a saint, by standards of today or his day.
As for faux gill slits, I never considered such things to be relevant
to abortion discussions.

It is all just an elabourate scheme to say Darwin was a
bad person so his theory is wrong. Possibly by
extension, all who go along with it are too.

 

[Audie]

Thank you good sir for your honesty, you surprise me.

I'll wait for your evidence of a creator, should be interesting and extremely lucrative for you. In thousands of years of god worship literally billions of people have tried and failed to provide such evidence of the creator of the universe. If you can provide evidence just think... You would have church and government leaders on your speed dial, universities and religious organizations will offer riches beyond avarice just for you to speak for them. Sponsorship deals would clog up your letter box. And the real biggy, atheism will essentially become history. And we humble RFites will be among the first to hear your hallowed words.

Just think-all those creation scientists out there,
just one Cambrian bunny away from destroying
ToE and ushering in the Revival.

Me? I am, as the radio ad goes, just ONE PHONE CALL
away from vast wealth.

Drop everything, stand by...!

 

[ChristineM]

Just think-all those creation scientists out there,
just one Cambrian bunny away from destroying
ToE and ushering in the Revival.

Me? I am, as the radio ad goes, just ONE PHONE CALL
away from vast wealth.

Drop everything, stand by...!

Ha, ha, precambrian bunny... If ever there were a twist in the tail . Creationists will try to break it off.


You get that phone call too? I get it about 3 times a week.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is all just an elabourate scheme to say Darwin was a
bad person so his theory is wrong. Possibly by
extension, all who go along with it are too.

Aye dat....seen it so many times before.
But do they ever judge their own religion by that standard?

 

[Jose Fly]

You had far more patience than I had.

Well so far, @nPeace hasn't said anything to me that I see as problematic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well so far, @nPeace hasn't said anything to me that I see as problematic.

I took issue with how he treated the theory of evolution, and the the entire scientific method. Also he seems to believe that one must constantly reinvent the wheel as shown by his multi-leveled errors on whale evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You obviously still do not comprehend the scientific method so fall back on the old mockery again

Please provide evidence of a creator, the supernatural... ou and et's.

And there's the rub... the creator is not 'in the box' of the universe unless he wants to but out of the box and hence a serious limitation of naturalistic science - or a blind spot if you prefer

Or the God is made up.

I'm sure you can demonstrate the existence of this God whose wants and desires you seem to know, by using the same level of evidence that you expect from the sciences. Right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dawkins was in a famous documentary called 'frog to a Prince" when he was asked if he could think of a case where any biological point mutation caused an increase in information and could not

see

hmm he dodged the question and talked about something else

Oh no, you got us! Richard Dawkins couldn't answer a poorly constructed question one time so evolution is fake!
Come on, man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly correct. Subzie is even worse than me, at doing that.

I'm guilty of it too, for sure.

I'd love to see an agreement that when a person has laid an
egg, that nobody lets them start a new topic until they've
dealt with the previous one

Subs, ya got that??

I would SO love that. Great idea!

 

[Audie]

I'm guilty of it too, for sure.

I would SO love that. Great idea!

"Section Three", I'd call it. Like a "godwin".
Lets see if we can recruit subz.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Section Three", I'd call it. Like a "godwin".
Lets see if we can recruit subz.

Sure why not. I have been doing that with @whirlingmerc on his use of sites that require their employees to avoid the scientific method. He seriously does not want to address that issue. He knows that AiG and other sites do so and yet he feels justified in linking well known "liars for Jesus".

 

[nPeace]

Of course I read it. It was verbose garbage. You are still ignoring your error. And still dodging.

I thought as much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought as much.

Misusing smilies can be viewed as goading. You made several errors in that post. It was incorrect in your claims about scientists since you ignored how they go beyond inference. And then you made a rather bogus statement about whale evolution.

Tell me, do you think that scientists need to reinvent the wheel with every new discovery?

 

[nPeace]

First, the reason there's a "fuss" is because some of the conclusions of evolutionary biology contradict some folks' religious beliefs. If it weren't for that, boards like this wouldn't even exist.

Fair enough.

Second, much of evolutionary theory involves direct observation, such as lab experiments that show how different mechanisms operate or studies of wild populations that show how new species evolve. So while inference does indeed play a role in the science, it's not all there is to it.

I get the observations of how organisms work. Wouldn't you be surprised if you got in your motor car, started it, put it in forward, pressed the gas and turned the steering wheel left, and the car turned right, and move backward? I would.

When scientist observe things working, they are simply observing their mechanisms. What mechanisms have they observed that show evolution? Can you think of one example?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough.


I get the observations of how organisms work. Wouldn't you be surprised if you got in your motor car, started it, put it in forward, pressed the gas and turned the steering wheel left, and the car turned right, and move backward? I would.

When scientist observe things working, they are simply observing their mechanisms. What mechanisms have they observed that show evolution? Can you think of one example?

What do you mean by "show evolution"? The fossil record "shows evolution" it s exactly the sort of record that we would expect if evolution occurred and has not other explanation that has not been thoroughly refuted. Perhaps you are making an unreasonable demand.

 

[Jose Fly]

I get the observations of how organisms work.

In the context of our discussion, it's not just observing and studying how organisms work, it's observing and studying how they evolve.

Wouldn't you be surprised if you got in your motor car, started it, put it in forward, pressed the gas and turned the steering wheel left, and the car turned right, and move backward? I would.

Yup.

When scientist observe things working, they are simply observing their mechanisms. What mechanisms have they observed that show evolution? Can you think of one example?

Simply put, every population we've ever studied or observed evolves. The only way a population wouldn't evolve is if its members replicated themselves perfectly all the time. But we know that doesn't happen; pretty much every replication event includes genetic changes that get passed down to the next generation. That's evolution. So whenever scientists study populations over time, they're watching them evolve. We've observed and documented the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species both in the wild and in the lab.

That's why you often hear people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact because we see it happen. The theory is our attempt to describe how it happens (for example, by what mechanisms and pathways).

Does that help?

 

[nPeace]

Simply put, every population we've ever studied or observed evolves. The only way a population wouldn't evolve is if its members replicated themselves perfectly all the time. But we know that doesn't happen; pretty much every replication event includes genetic changes that get passed down to the next generation. That's evolution. So whenever scientists study populations over time, they're watching them evolve. We've observed and documented the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species both in the wild and in the lab.

That's why you often hear people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a fact because we see it happen. The theory is our attempt to describe how it happens (for example, by what mechanisms and pathways).

Does that help?

Not yet.
What did you observe evolving, and how did you observe it evolving?

 

[Jose Fly]

Not yet.
What did you observe evolving, and how did you observe it evolving?

Personally? As an undergrad biology student, I (along with my classmates) carried out a lab experiment where we watched a strain of E. coli evolve resistance to an antibiotic. We also identified the genetic changes that conferred the new trait.

I've also been fortunate enough to do a field visit where some researchers were studying the evolution of new plant species.

 

[nPeace]

Personally? As an undergrad biology student, I (along with my classmates) carried out a lab experiment where we watched a strain of E. coli evolve resistance to an antibiotic. We also identified the genetic changes that conferred the new trait.

I've also been fortunate enough to do a field visit where some researchers were studying the evolution of new plant species.

Reproduction of bacteria from other bacteria. Reproduction of plants from plants, is exactly how it's suppose to work - like the motor car.
That's what you refer to as observing evolution ?
I am shocked. I really thought you were going to give me something.
Nobody here argues against reproduction - no matter what name people give it.

How about a fish to a frog - something like that. Have you observed that kind of evolution? How did you observe it?

 

[Polymath257]

Reproduction of bacteria from other bacteria. Reproduction of plants from plants, is exactly how it's suppose to work - like the motor car.
That's what you refer to as observing evolution ?
I am shocked. I really thought you were going to give me something.
Nobody here argues against reproduction - no matter what name people give it.

How about a fish to a frog - something like that. Have you observed that kind of evolution? How did you observe it?

You realize that evolution doesn't predict that a fish will give birth to a frog, right?

And that changes on that scale take at least thousands to hundreds of thousands of generations?