• 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!

Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
There's the problem - Deeje, despite claims of years of study, cannot understand and therefore thinks that "jargon" is a means of the educated and intelligent to hide 'real facts' from the uneducated yet certain. Deeje has whined about the use of "jargon" 91 times on this forum since 2016 - she obsesses over it and uses it to hide the fact that she has nothing of scientific merit to offer (or understand).
Her first time using it:

Organic evolution is taught as fact, couched in scientific jargon, and promoted as fact to the world. Scientists themselves are pressured into accepting it, fearful that their reputations will be ruined if they question it.

Note the hackneyed nonsense paranoia and accusations.
Funniest part - right after that, she posted a Youtube video about animals that "defy evolution" that had no facts in it...

Her most recent use of it, today:

May 26, 2020:

I know enough to not need the scientific jargon to understand words that imply doubt in the English language.....you don't have to be a genius to understand that suggestions are not facts.

These people are amazing. Amazingly predictable, amazingly under-informed, amazingly over-confident.



Just wanted to let you know that I understand you are teaching genetics and that I think I would love to sit in your class and learn. It is frustrating to spend so much time to look up well documented and supported studies or reviews with a single dismissal just because the do not understand the information presented. I have read all of the wonderful studies and information you have provided and read the sad responses. This review happens to be important to me as it is such an amazing review of the incredible variation creating alternative ways of to adapt with similar function. But as you have experienced, posts of "deeje" and the bazaar "dad" posts intentionally ignore the evidence that took so much time and true objective study to complete.

The standing view of birds was they were not capable of intelligent behavior. It took and objective reevaluation of this based on evidence and not what someone wants to believe in but to rather see birds in their right. "Deeje' and "dad' do not understand how science continually questions itself and tries to present the truth as much as we can obtain. Many of those who originally believed that animals had intelligence in their own right were ridiculed for such silly views. When Goodall reported tool use in chimpanzees she was ridiculed initially as being insufficiently trained in academic institutions. Now we look back and recognize her contributions because of how objective science is over time.

Thank you for keeping up the education of all of us in genetics and evolution.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
So you've never seen a scientist lose their job over daring to suggest that there is a connection between a paycheck and ones "belief" in science? The status quo will not be questioned.....it would mean that science could be w-r-o-n-g. :eek:

We only have to see what happens in the medical field when someone wants to upset their apple cart with a new discovery that proves that their former treatment options were actually harmful.....its often career suicide....a tough wall to tear down. (The treatment of stomach ulcers was an example. Helicobacter was suggested as the culprit in many cases, and a short course of anti-biotics could cure it. He was almost laughed out of medicine....until it was proven to work.) Its hard to change scientific minds once something is entrenched. (Or dare I say indoctrinated?)



I think you are speaking about that obvious 'one-up-manship', where competing scientists might have grant money or Nobel Prizes in mind, along with accolades from the scientific community if they can do something that no one else has done....or discover things that no one else has discovered....so, what do you think they are going to do?
The hallowed halls of science are littered with egos, eager to compete, but they would never venture outside the evolutionary boxing ring into which most branches of science must do their sparring. All their competition is inside that ring and based on that first premise.

You can believe in science if you wish.....it is after all, the study of creation. I'll allow the Creator to tell me what he did....in the order that he did it. I believe he is way more believable than the story science is spinning.



LOL...I think you are rather naive about that.



Oh yes....let's not forget 'who wants to be a 'nobody''. :rolleyes: There you have it.

Original research and new discoveries that can stick it to other competing scientists is nothing more than an ego trip. You don't seem to understand that none of their research or discoveries will ever challenge the very foundations of evolutionary science. That remains as solid as it ever did, despite the fact that there is no concrete supporting it.....its made of matchsticks IMO. :D

It is so sad that you have no concept of the work involved in producing original research. Any Ego in science always leads to the downfall to anyone who works in science without an open mind and accepting of what the evidence shows. The evidence supporting evidence is open for challenge all of the time. Despite this the continuing research continues to support evolution. The support is solid now more than ever. There is concrete evidence supporting it. Just because you are not aware of it, do not understand it, or intentionally ignore it does not make it untrue.

Question? Did you actually read the review the article and check the references for the supporting evidence? If not be honest and say that you didn't but do not judge the ideas unless you have a legitimate disagreement with supporting evidence.

You are welcome to have your opinion but to discredit such amazing research is your ego ignoring what is known.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I think there is a marked difference between guessing with fudged or biastly interpreted evidence, and predicting an outcome backed up with with experimentation, which results in reaching provable conclusions....what about you?

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals and suggestions in any field of study, as long as they are not presented as proven facts.
What's wrong with the truth? Science apparently 'can't handle the truth'....:eek:

How dare we expose their unprovable musings as ideas that simply have no real support....except in the lengthy protestation about why their unprovable musings must be true....or is that "might be" or "could be"? :rolleyes:

Except that you ignore the evidence with all its support for your opinion. That is opinion and not supported statement. Just because you must ignore the truth presented to keep what you consider as your faith.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
"Deeje' and "dad' do not understand how science continually questions itself and tries to present the truth as much as we can obtain.

And there you have the qualification...."as much as we can obtain". It's what you can't obtain that is the problem. Whenever the 'evidence' doesn't give science what it wants, they squeeze it in with a "might have" or "could have".....and turn it into a "must have". This is what I observe that you all seem to conveniently ignore.

It is so sad that you have no concept of the work involved in producing original research. Any Ego in science always leads to the downfall to anyone who works in science without an open mind and accepting of what the evidence shows.

Oh boo hoo Wild Fox,
sad0025.gif
my heart bleeds for them. I can't accept their beliefs so what does that make me? Exactly like those who don't accept mine.....its so sad, why don't we all have a pity party?
sad0116.gif


"Accepting what the evidence shows"?....what evidence?....that things are similar or have shared traits?...so that must of necessity mean that they evolved? And that their common ancestors, who are never produced or identified "must have" existed too....Are you serious?

The evidence supporting evidence is open for challenge all of the time. Despite this the continuing research continues to support evolution. The support is solid now more than ever. There is concrete evidence supporting it.

I have not seen any change in the evidence that life on this planet started with a microscopic, single celled organism that somehow popped into existence for no apparent reason, and over time transformed itself into lifeforms the size of three story buildings.....let's have that evidence, or the rest is moot....total guesswork. Its the foundations of evolution that I question most of all....the claims are paper thin.The fossils become ventriloquists' dummies with science putting words in their bony mouths.

Just because you are not aware of it, do not understand it, or intentionally ignore it does not make it untrue.

Just because you reject things that you are not aware of....do not understand...or intentionally ignore, doesn't make your beliefs any more true than mine. Pick your belief system. We all do. :)

Question? Did you actually read the review the article and check the references for the supporting evidence? If not be honest and say that you didn't but do not judge the ideas unless you have a legitimate disagreement with supporting evidence.

That is like me asking you if you checked with Bible scholars to see if their review of the Bible's account of creation is true.....seriously....what do you expect them to say? Preaching to the choir is not a good way to disseminate truth.

My disagreement is legitimate because science does not have substantiated evidence that what they believe about how life evolved in prehistoric times, is even possible, let alone true. Tell me how that statement is not true.

You are welcome to have your opinion but to discredit such amazing research is your ego ignoring what is known.

I will never discredit the work of real factual science...how could I? It's the study of God's creation. It reveals amazing aspects of how living things can function as lone organisms, colonies, pack animals and family troupes. It helps us to understand how amazingly living things are designed....it has helped scientists to mimic the things in nature, to invent things that assist us with many beneficial outcomes.

Its amazing to me that someone needs a science degree to imitate something in nature that supposedly required no intelligence to produce in the first place. :shrug:

Just because you must ignore the truth presented to keep what you consider as your faith.

Please apply what you just said to your own fraternity. You can keep your faith and I'll keep mine...OK?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I think there is a marked difference between guessing with fudged or biastly interpreted evidence, and predicting an outcome backed up with with experimentation, which results in reaching provable conclusions....what about you?

Nothing wrong with hypotheticals and suggestions in any field of study, as long as they are not presented as proven facts.
What's wrong with the truth? Science apparently 'can't handle the truth'....:eek:

How dare we expose their unprovable musings as ideas that simply have no real support....except in the lengthy protestation about why their unprovable musings must be true....or is that "might be" or "could be"? :rolleyes:

All very nice, but the truth is that science does accept the truth in preference to any fiction, and is prepared to alter any theories as new evidence comes to light. And guessing is often the first step as to any theory developing, for which we can thank human imagination and intelligence, along with some observation and a lot of work. One just has to look at history to know this. Unprovable? I think religions are the winners here. :rolleyes:
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
All very nice, but the truth is that science does accept the truth in preference to any fiction, and is prepared to alter any theories as new evidence comes to light.

Well, you see, I'm not concerned with what science prefers, because our reality is their fiction.
Their reality is our fiction....and neither of us has the high ground because we both have "unprovable" beliefs. Scientists have faith in science, not because of real evidence but because of the spin they put on the evidence they have.

I have evidence for my Creator in the creation itself. That is testimony enough for me. The evidence is all around us, but put down to the blind forces of "nature".....nature is created...it is not the creator. Nature is full of purpose in design, which of necessity requires intelligence and planning ability to anticipate what is needed for creatures to survive and reproduce. Not to mention the transmission of information via DNA in that reproduction. Whatever is written requires a writer, and whatever is programmed requires a programmer....when is this not demonstrated in our everyday reality?

And guessing is often the first step as to any theory developing, for which we can thank human imagination and intelligence, along with some observation and a lot of work. One just has to look at history to know this.

And I have no issues with their guesswork as long as they present it as such. From the replies here it is very obvious that any criticism of evolutionary science is like blaspheming their gods and disrespecting their scripture. o_O What do any of them have to fear from anything I say, if what they believe is actually provable? They are the first to tell you that science doesn't have to prove anything. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Unprovable? I think religions are the winners here.

When you have equally unprovable belief systems...take your pick. :shrug:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So you've never seen a scientist lose their job over daring to suggest that there is a connection between a paycheck and ones "belief" in science?

I've seen people of all kinds lose their jobs over throwing around false accusations.
But that wasn't the subject. The subject was that the size of a paycheck of a scientist will not be growing if that scientist does no original research, discovers nothing new and only upholds the status quo.

We only have to see what happens in the medical field when someone wants to upset their apple cart with a new discovery that proves that their former treatment options were actually harmful.....its often career suicide....a tough wall to tear down

Pharma is applied science, a commercial enterprise. So it plays by different rules when it comes to job retention and promotion.


(The treatment of stomach ulcers was an example. Helicobacter was suggested as the culprit in many cases, and a short course of anti-biotics could cure it. He was almost laughed out of medicine....until it was proven to work.) Its hard to change scientific minds once something is entrenched. (Or dare I say indoctrinated?)

Yes, changing minds in science can be quite hard work. For good reason to.
Keywords in your quote: until it was proven to work.

So before the evidence was revealed that demonstrated his claim, the claim wasn't accepted.
Then the evidence came in, and it was accepted.

Where is the problem?
What is your complaint? That science is hard work sometimes? That it's "annoying" that people require sufficient evidence to demonstrate their claims before the claims are accepted?

You feel like they should have accepted the claim, before there was sufficient evidence to accept it?
Do you honestly think that would benefit the scientific enterprise as a whole?

I think you are speaking about that obvious 'one-up-manship', where competing scientists might have grant money or Nobel Prizes in mind, along with accolades from the scientific community if they can do something that no one else has done....or discover things that no one else has discovered....so, what do you think they are going to do?

I'm speaking about in general.

Consider the names of all the famous scientists that practically EVERYBODY knows - even those who are pretty much scientifically illiterate.

Who never heared the names Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Gallilleo, Curie, Farraday, Hawking, Hubble...

WHY do people know these names? WHY are buildings, statues, villages,...erected in their honor / carrying their name? Is it because they upheld the status quo? Or is it because they turned their fields upside down by going against the flow and showing all their peers wrong?

The hallowed halls of science are littered with egos, eager to compete, but they would never venture outside the evolutionary boxing ring into which most branches of science must do their sparring

They will, the second sufficient evidence is presented that justifies doing so.
Until then, why would they?


All their competition is inside that ring and based on that first premise.

Because that's what the currently available evidence demands.

You can believe in science if you wish....

Science requires no "belief". Science is very evidence and results based.
We can for example trust that atomic theory is quite accurate and that scientists thus have a relativity good understanding concerning how atoms work, because nukes explode.

.it is after all, the study of creation

Calling reality "creation" is a dishonest and unjustified statement not supported by evidence.


I'll allow the Creator to tell me what he did....in the order that he did it.

Just don't pretend as if that is a better and more rationally justified position then evidence based science is.

I believe he is way more believable than the story science is spinning.

Nobody in the sciences cares what you or anyone else "believes".
In science, they only care about what you can demonstrate with independently verifiable evidence.

This is why you won't succeed in shattering the consensus (based on evidence) with bare claims not based on evidence. It's also why the scientific community with happily and with excitement change the consensus the second your claims are supported by sufficient evidence.

LOL...I think you are rather naive about that.

Nope. As has become clear once again in this post, I'm right on the money.
YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE of medical science shows this.

A claim not in evidence isn't accepted.
Once sufficient evidence is presented, it is accepted.

What's the problem with that?
It seems to me to be a good thing that claims aren't accepted by default when they aren't sufficiently supported with testable evidence....


Oh yes....let's not forget 'who wants to be a 'nobody''. :rolleyes: There you have it.

Yes, there you have it.
Again: you know the names Newton and Einstein.
But you don't know the names of the physicists who did an experiment in 1975 which merely ended up confirming relativity for the bazillionth time. Neither are these people listed in the scientific hall of fame. Neither did they get any prizes for it.

Now if during that experiment, relativity were shown inadequate or even wrong... You WOULD know their names.

Because once again, in science, fame and glory is reserved for those who show their peers wrong. Not for those who simply uphold the status quo and merely confirm that which was already known or accepted.

Original research and new discoveries that can stick it to other competing scientists is nothing more than an ego trip.

So do we remember Newton and Einstein to satisfy their ego's, or do we remember them for the work they did? :rolleyes:

You don't seem to understand that none of their research or discoveries will ever challenge the very foundations of evolutionary science

For the same reason that research and discoveries will never challenge a spherical earth in favor of a flat one.

This is what you don't comprehend and are unwilling to comprehend. Evolution is pretty much an established science. Yes, in light of what we currently know and in light of the ginormous amount of supporting evidence, I find it absolutely unthinkable that it will ever be overturned and demonstrated wrong. As unthinkable that spherical earth is every going to be disproven in favrou of flat-earth-ism.

Nonetheless, never say never. How unthinkable it seems, scientific intellectual honesty demands that one stays open to future evidence showing exactly that... no matter how incredibly unlikely and implausible that may seem.

But let's be serious here.... the person taking on that challenge has some 200 years worth of scientific study in a couple dozen fields to go up against.

See, the ultimate problem here is that you really don't comprehend just how big evolution theory is. Literally dozens of different independent fields support this theory. This is why it is called the "unified field theory of biology", as it ties together ALL biological sciences and even gets cross reference support from fields like geology.

To show this theory wrong... would have to be just as impressive. It would require dealing with ALL the evidence that supports evolution. So it would require dealing with genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, molecular biology, micro-biology, bio-chemistry, comparative genomics, geographic distribution of species, etc etc etc etc.

You also don't seem to understand that the idea you favour over evolution, is the idea that was prevalent BEFORE darwin came up with natural selection.

This means that your idea was overturned by evolution.
So to think that evolution would be overturned and replaced by a model that was overturned by evolution.... is like thinking that tomorrow we'll find out that the earth isn't spherical after all and flat like people thought millenia ago. Or that heliocentrism, which replaced geocentrism, turns out wrong and that geocentrism was correct after all.

Or that Einstein was wrong and that Newton was more correct after all.

This is crazy.
Einsteinian physics might turn out wrong or inadequate. But the fact that it replaced Newtonian physics, means that it better explained the evidence then Newtonian physics.

If new evidence comes up that relativity can't explain, or that even shows relativity to be wrong in some way or at some level, that still wouldn't change the fact that relativity more accurately explains the evidence then Newtonian physics did!

The same goes for evolution. If tomorrow evolution is shown inadequate, it would STILL do a better job at explaining all the evidence then creationism does.

The NEW evidence might pose a problem for the theory. But all the other evidence wouldn't disappear in the shadows of the new evidence.

Even if shown inaccurate, evolution would STILL be a better fit for the evidence then ALL ideas that preceeded it was. Because that is precisely why it was accepted in the first place: it was a better fit for the evidence. That would remain so, even after new evidence comes up that doesn't fit into the model.


That remains as solid as it ever did, despite the fact that there is no concrete supporting it.....its made of matchsticks IMO. :D

You can believe that if you want.
But you'll just be incorrect.


But by now, we have already established on multiple occasions that for some reason you like being incorrect... That must be the case, considering how many times you were informed of your mistakes after which you simply repeat them, not caring at all about them having been corrected.

So.... yeah....

Same old, same old...
Business as usual, I guess.

upload_2020-5-28_11-33-55.png
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, you see, I'm not concerned with what science prefers, because our reality is their fiction.
Their reality is our fiction....


So how's that fictional device working out for you, which allows you to post fictional messages to a board at light speed?

and neither of us has the high ground because we both have "unprovable" beliefs.

You do.
In science, unprovable beliefs are ignored. LIKE THE VERY EXAMPLE YOU GAVE about that anti-biotics thing clearly showed.

Remember? That was your "example" of how "bad" science is because it didn't accept the claims of somebody until the claims could actually be demonstrated.


Ironic isn't it, how you thought you were bringing us an example of how "bad" and "evil" the science is and how it all operates on "faith" instead of evidence.... while your example shows the exact opposite.

Scientists have faith in science, not because of real evidence but because of the spin they put on the evidence they have.

If that were true, they would have accepted the claim of your anti-biotics example BEFORE it could be demonstrated. But that's not what happened, was it?

Nope. What actually happened was that the claim was accepted, once it could be demonstrated with evidence.

That's the opposite of faith.

I have evidence for my Creator in the creation itself. That is testimony enough for me. The evidence is all around us, but put down to the blind forces of "nature".....nature is created...it is not the creator. Nature is full of purpose in design, which of necessity requires intelligence and planning ability to anticipate what is needed for creatures to survive and reproduce. Not to mention the transmission of information via DNA in that reproduction. Whatever is written requires a writer, and whatever is programmed requires a programmer....when is this not demonstrated in our everyday reality?

Your opinions and feelings which are even informed by extreme ignorance of the subject matter, aren't evidence.

And I have no issues with their guesswork as long as they present it as such. From the replies here it is very obvious that any criticism of evolutionary science is like blaspheming their gods and disrespecting their scripture. o_O


No. Nobody takes any issue with criticism or honest questions.
The problem that people take issue with, is being dishonest and misrepresenting / lying about what the science really is about. And yes, I get to call it dishonesty and lying, because there comes a point after dozens and dozens of corrections of your mistakes, that we can no longer call them mere mistakes.

After a "mistake" / "misrepresentation" / "misunderstanding" has been pointed out countless times... when it then is still repeated, one can only conclude that it is being done on purpose.


What do any of them have to fear from anything I say, if what they believe is actually provable?

What do YOU have to fear about correcting your mistakes and misunderstandings?

They are the first to tell you that science doesn't have to prove anything. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Scientific theories can't be "proven" by definition. Only either supported by evidence or disproven by evidence.


Something you'ld know if you weren't so scientifically illiterate.


When you have equally unprovable belief systems...take your pick. :shrug:[/QUOTE]
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Scientific theories can't be "proven" by definition. Only either supported by evidence or disproven by evidence.

That is not actually true.....it is interpretation of the evidence that makes something true or not.....let's be honest.

Something you'ld know if you weren't so scientifically illiterate.

For someone who says a lot, you actually say very little that is not purely defensive and deliberately insulting. I haven't criticized your mother....just your beliefs.

Nothing to date has addressed a single question that I have asked concerning science's musings about single-celled organisms transforming into gigantic creatures like dinosaurs over time.....I have never seen anything but suggestions, and you have never provided anything but complaints about my ignorance......so give us what you have regarding the very foundations of evolutionary science.....tell us how it all happened and back that up with real evidence that does not depend on supposition or assertion or suggestion....I am all ears.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Well, you see, I'm not concerned with what science prefers, because our reality is their fiction.
Yes, I'm sure we are well aware that religious beliefs are usually the winners when it comes to fiction.
Their reality is our fiction....and neither of us has the high ground because we both have "unprovable" beliefs. Scientists have faith in science, not because of real evidence but because of the spin they put on the evidence they have.
You no doubt could prove as many scientific facts as you might wish if you cared to take the time - to learn enough - but seemingly you would rather not, trusting instead to some text written by humans purporting to be from some God.
I have evidence for my Creator in the creation itself. That is testimony enough for me. The evidence is all around us, but put down to the blind forces of "nature".....nature is created...it is not the creator. Nature is full of purpose in design, which of necessity requires intelligence and planning ability to anticipate what is needed for creatures to survive and reproduce. Not to mention the transmission of information via DNA in that reproduction. Whatever is written requires a writer, and whatever is programmed requires a programmer....when is this not demonstrated in our everyday reality?
No change here then. Same old stuff.
And I have no issues with their guesswork as long as they present it as such. From the replies here it is very obvious that any criticism of evolutionary science is like blaspheming their gods and disrespecting their scripture. o_O What do any of them have to fear from anything I say, if what they believe is actually provable? They are the first to tell you that science doesn't have to prove anything. How convenient. :rolleyes:
Misconstruing as usual - guesswork is often the initiator for paths to develop leading to knowledge, not the end result. But then it is all the same to you maybe - since you take one book or maybe more as sufficient evidence.
When you have equally unprovable belief systems...take your pick. :shrug:
You know my position - I choose none, including all the religious variety. Science is a separate issue.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Just wanted to let you know that I understand you are teaching genetics and that I think I would love to sit in your class and learn.
Thanks! I haven't taught it in a few years, so I do need to brush up a bit.
Someone wanting to learn about a subject - not used to that on these forums! Well, at least on one side of the equation...
It is frustrating to spend so much time to look up well documented and supported studies or reviews with a single dismissal just because the do not understand the information presented. I have read all of the wonderful studies and information you have provided and read the sad responses. This review happens to be important to me as it is such an amazing review of the incredible variation creating alternative ways of to adapt with similar function. But as you have experienced, posts of "deeje" and the bazaar "dad" posts intentionally ignore the evidence that took so much time and true objective study to complete.

VERY frustrating. It took me over an hour to write up my Sanford OP, as I double-checked sources, searched for an online version of the book, searched these forums for old posts on the subject and read through about 100 (now THAT was time consuming), all for most of it to be ignored...
And I know that most of us have experienced the same thing more than once.
The standing view of birds was they were not capable of intelligent behavior. It took and objective reevaluation of this based on evidence and not what someone wants to believe in but to rather see birds in their right.
Aye - human chauvinism still has to be rooted out, even in science. It was (and still is among some) a major driving factor in the early estimates of gene numbers in different animals - it was thought that humans would have to have way more genes than lowly insects and the like, because we are so special. And that kind of sentiment came from the likes of JM Smith. You can still find people looking for ways to inflate our gene number, or our amount of regulatory sequence, or some other way to 'justify' our specialness with bigger numbers.
And the same with bird brains, it seems.
A few years ago, I was considering creating a class on brain evolution. I came across a very thick book on brain evolution at the annual Society for Neuroscience meeting a few years ago and purchased it. I never got to working on the class, so I never really spent much time looking through the book - when I am allowed back on campus, I shall see if there is any relevant information in there re: birds. We might find that this sort of information was known about all along, but the significance of it was not recognized.
"Deeje' and "dad' do not understand how science continually questions itself and tries to present the truth as much as we can obtain.
Yeah, I couldn't stomach dad... blocked him a while ago.
Many of those who originally believed that animals had intelligence in their own right were ridiculed for such silly views. When Goodall reported tool use in chimpanzees she was ridiculed initially as being insufficiently trained in academic institutions. Now we look back and recognize her contributions because of how objective science is over time.

Oh yeah, I know - Steven Pinker (whom I generally like) wrote 20 years ago that we were the only animals that point to things and understand representations of objects. I attended a meeting in 1996, however, at which Roger Fouts (a chimp language guy) showed videotape of chimps pointing at things - in the wild. I have also seen film of chimps understanding that a model of a room represent a real room - in the model of the room, the chimp was shown a little can of Coke (chimps like coke, I guess) being put in a cabinet, then the chimp was brought into the real room. She looked around a bit, saw the cabinet, went over to it got the coke.They (and probably most animals) are 'smarter' than we want to acknowledge.
Thank you for keeping up the education of all of us in genetics and evolution.
You do well enough yourself, but I am happy I can help out.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
So you've never seen a scientist lose their job over daring to suggest that there is a connection between a paycheck and ones "belief" in science?

I have seen CLAIMS that this has occurred, but upon investigation, the claims are usually just whining or attempts at martyrdom by psychopaths like Judy Mikovits or Jerry Bergman.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Common ancestry is assumed as well.
It is assumed now because it has been all but proven via multiple types of evidence. Just like we assume that gravity is real when space flights are planned.
But you are a creationist with no science knowledge, so you just ignore all that.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Did you read the article? It was a review article with references that contain the evidence. And the evidence is supportive and extensive and some is very technical but with careful reading can be understood.
We have to remember one of the several antics that creationists like @Deeje feel compelled to engage in - in this case:

1. If too much appropriate and relevant scientific terminology is used, it is dismissed as "jargon" being employed to condescend to and to confuse layfolk
2. If concepts are simplified, i.e., 'dumbed down' for them to be able to understand, it is dismissed as having no actual 'evidence.'

A win-win for the Dunning-Kruger effect sufferers, or so they think, but it is really a lose-lose for them, because lurkers can see their antics and understand that they act that way not out of great knowledge and confidence, but out of ignorance and fear.
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I know enough to not need the scientific jargon to understand words that imply doubt in the English language..

92 times?
I see the same evidence but with an entirely different interpretation.
Religious fanatics look at a water stain on the side of a building and say it is an apparition of the Virgin Mary and come from all over the world merely to look at it.
The landscaping crew that works at the building see that it is just a water stain that shows up every time the sprinklers run on hot days.

The religious nuts "interpret" the water stain as a sign from Yahweh, because I guess Yahweh's powers ran out slaughtering millions with a flood and is now capable only of swaying the sensibilities of fools to see 'signs' in water stains and burnt toast and tortillas and the like.

Same evidence, different interpretations, and every time, it is the hyper-religious that make fools of themselves. Just like now.

LESSON: Not all interpretations are valid. Interpretations of evidence are best left to the people that understand how the evidence may have been produced, not by agenda-driven zealots desperate to prop up their mere beliefs.
If certain creatures are programmed in their behavior, who programmed them?.
Metaphors are hard to understand, aren't they? Too much jargon?
 
Last edited:

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
That is like me asking you if you checked with Bible scholars to see if their review of the Bible's account of creation is true.....seriously....what do you expect them to say? Preaching to the choir is not a good way to disseminate truth.

My disagreement is legitimate because science does not have substantiated evidence that what they believe about how life evolved in prehistoric times, is even possible, let alone true. Tell me how that statement is not true.
No your argument is not legitimate because you do not even attempt to know what the evidence is then you say there is no evidence. Just say I am not going to even look at the evidence because I do not want to. Saying evidence does not exist just because you do not know that is a fallacy. It shows you are unwilling to learn about what you are arguing against so your argument becomes meaningless. Your statement is not true because you have ignored the evidence and nothing more. I have gone to ID website and reviewed there evidence before I agree or disagree. You need to do the same.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
I will never discredit the work of real factual science...how could I? It's the study of God's creation. It reveals amazing aspects of how living things can function as lone organisms, colonies, pack animals and family troupes. It helps us to understand how amazingly living things are designed....it has helped scientists to mimic the things in nature, to invent things that assist us with many beneficial outcomes.

But you do discredit the work of real factual science that has been presented. Evolution explains everything else you say and with the evidence to support it. You have none by your wish to believe.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That is not actually true...


Except that it is.
Again, if you were a bit scientifically literate, you'ld know it.

So I guess you can add this to the already far to long list of mistakes you are unwilling to correct.

..it is interpretation of the evidence that makes something true or not.....let's be honest.

"true" provisionally only, because you don't know what evidence you will discover tomorrow.
Not "absolutely true" as that would require proof which can't be overturned by future discoveries.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes when it comes to explanatory models (=hypothesis / theories).

For someone who says a lot, you actually say very little that is not purely defensive and deliberately insulting. I haven't criticized your mother....just your beliefs.

You haven't correctly criticized anything. All you have done is expose your ignorance.

If you don't even understand how theories are NEVER considered "proven", how science is NOT in the business of "proving theories", how theories can only ever be either supported by evidence or disproven by evidence... then you are scientifically illiterate, plain and simple.

This is extremely basic science 101.

Nothing to date has addressed a single question that I have asked concerning science's musings about single-celled organisms transforming into gigantic creatures like dinosaurs over time...

Because your questions are rooted in ignorance and false assumptions.
So the answers addresses that ignorance and corrects the false assumptions.

When you ask a question like "what does purple taste like?", the answer will consist of explaining how colors are things that are seen and not tasted.
What you do here, is the equivalent of complaining that that question wasn't answered with "bitter" or "salty" or alike.

..I have never seen anything but suggestions, and you have never provided anything but complaints about my ignorance......

If you weren't so unwilling to learn about the science you are hellbend on arguing against, then we could actually have a productive discussion about the science.

But since you insist on getting everything wrong and categorically refuse to correct such mistakes, all we can do is continue to address all the stuff you have wrong.

Your questions are irrelevant and invalid if they are rooted in ignorance.

so give us what you have regarding the very foundations of evolutionary science.....tell us how it all happened and back that up with real evidence that does not depend on supposition or assertion or suggestion....I am all ears.

This has all been presented to you already.

In a nutshell, evolution by natural selection and common ancestry of species is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, coming from different independent scientific fields, that all converge on the same answer.

Multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same answer, with no lines of evidence AT ALL pointing in another direction, is the strongest possible set of evidence you can have in the world of science.

You don't accept the evidence, primarily because you don't (want to) understand it.

You won't even accept / acknowledge that DNA analysis can determine kinship. Understandable off course, since accepting that would mean that you'ld also have to accept the genetic fact that all life is related through a common ancestor.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
"Accepting what the evidence shows"?....what evidence?....that things are similar or have shared traits?...so that must of necessity mean that they evolved? And that their common ancestors, who are never produced or identified "must have" existed too....Are you serious?

To me the strongest line of evidence for evolution (common ancestry) is the fact that we have shared broken genes in the same loci than chimps.

Why would a creator create the same broken genes in the same spot?


Sure you can adopt a position of extreme skepticism a d find an excuse "maybe the gene is not broken, maybe it has a function that both chimps and human need but we haven't discovered such function"

The problem is that by adopting a position of extreme an irrational skepticism one can also reject the arguments in favor of God, like the kalam cosmological argument or the fine tuning argument
 
Top