Evolution is (essentially) fact - so get over it already

[Anonymouse]

We have had previous threads on evolution. Two of them. I actually remember those being 'intellectual' discussions because the participants of those threads were actually familiar with the topic and were able to carry a discussion as opposed to 40 year olds posting worthless links and articles incessantly and resorting to intellectual intimidations. You seem to post a bunch of articles with links after every post of mine. Are you that insecure?

[Anonymouse]

And concernign this claim of failing to believe we evolved from simple organisms...well the fossil record is clear - those at the lower layers represent simpler/earlier lifeforms...those above - in more recent geological stratifications - demonstrate higher - more evolved organisms. Additionally - there are a great many "missing links" that show clear evolution from one speciies type to another - that clearly show the phases of adaptation/evolution. So there

The fossil record doesn't show evolution. The fossil record shows one species appearing and disappearing. It's funny you mention the fossil record. Darwin believed that the fossil record showed the gradual change overtime. Because of the missing links, this proved damaging to the dogma of evolution. So what did Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge do? They pontificated and came up with a way of getting around the missing fossils by punctuated equilibria, which did not champion slow and gradual change anymore (because the missing links weren't there). To make up for the gap of missing fossils change all of a sudden became drastic and sudden, as opposed to the gradualism of Darwin. Thank you for providing damaging points to the evolutionary theory, which is better off called evolutionary dogma.

[winoman]

Im sorry if you are intellectually intimidated...but after all we do know that a rat's meager level of intelligence will only take it so far.

It is quite telling that you categorize the position of the National Acadamy of Science a "worthless link" as well as the other's I have posted - and can only retort with ad hominem statements (like what does me being in my 40's have to do with anything? etc)- and other unsupportable positions - such as claiming that one who believes in the principles of evolution is arrogant because they know all the answers (well again you misunderstand science) - but what more I can do to explain it all to your feeble mind I do not know....

[winoman]

The fossil record doesn't show evolution. The fossil record shows one species appearing and disappearing. It's funny you mention the fossil record. Darwin believed that the fossil record showed the gradual change overtime. Because of the missing links, this proved damaging to the dogma of evolution. So what did Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge do? They pontificated and came up with a way of getting around the missing fossils by punctuated equilibria, which did not champion slow and gradual change anymore (because the missing links weren't there). To make up for the gap of missing fossils change all of a sudden became drastic and sudden, as opposed to the gradualism of Darwin. Thank you for providing damaging points to the evolutionary theory, which is better off called evolutionary dogma.

Again - as life evolves so does science and its understanding of things - all of which you fail to grasp. Obviously Darwin did not have all of the evidence or tools (genetic knowledge among them etc) to make do all and end all conclusions - but we have refined our knowledge - and this is a fundemental part of science. Still - the basic tennents of Darwinism are valid. Science continues to discover more concerning the process. And if you read the Gould post he is making a very specific example of a missing link that you fail to comprehend. Wiothout time travel it is impossible to be there at birth - but other sciences are not able to witness many things that are assumed (and fit) based on the knowledge one has. Is it the end of question - no - Science is about discovery - so we will continue to learn. In the meantime it is the best we have - certinly better then basing one's beliefs on entirely unsupported or discredited dogma - speaking of - just what do you believe about current species, extint spcies etc - that there is no relation...that they all existed independently? Do you believe that creatures are static - that they do not evolve in any way shape or form?

[winoman]

Hey Rat - your real name ain't Yaakov is it?

Mailbag: Evolution vs. Creationism
From: "Yaakov"
Subject: Evolution

Yaakov: As the phenomena of evolution to complex organisms has never been witnessed and is intrinsially unreproducible, it is clearly not a science and not given to scientific experimentation. It is therefore a religion.


Interestingly, much the same could be said for current statements about plate tectonics or what goes on in stars. Who has been to the center of the earth? Who has seen what goes on inside a star? No one has - but we are able to make informed statements about the relevant events based upon what we do witness. The fact of the matter is, the characteristics of "unreproducible" and "never been witnessed" are not the characteristics of a religion. For Yaakov to state that they are suggests that he doesn't know what a religion is. Which seems odd, if he is the observant Jew he claimed elsewhere to be.

Also, for Yaakov to suggest that much of geology, astronomy, etc. are "not science" also suggests that he doesn't know what science is. So perhaps it is easy for him to confuse the two subjects?

Yaakov: I don' know what a true "science" is, but it is important to differentiate between theories and things that can be proven through experimentation, i.e., reproducible results.

Yes, I agree that Yaakov has no idea what genuine science is - a really pitiful state for a doctor to be in. How on earth did he manage to become American Board Certified? Perhaps prospective doctors should be expected to know something about science and biology generally rather than just medicine in particular.

Proof through experimentation is indeed one facet of science, no question about it. At the same time, astronomy is a science even though no one has reproduced a star in a laboratory. Plate Tectonics is a science even though no one has ever visited the center of the planet. Key to science is testing ideas through observation. Sometimes that occurs in the laboratory, sometimes in the field. Both are equally acceptable - in fact, the latter is often preferable.

He admits that he doesn't know what science is, yet he presumes to preach about how some scientific endeavors don't qualify as science. Why? Because they contradict his religious dogmas.

[Anonymouse]

Im sorry if you are intellectually intimidated...but after all we do know that a rat's meager level of intelligence will only take it so far.

It is quite telling that you categorize the position of the National Acadamy of Science a "worthless link" as well as the other's I have posted - and can only retort with ad hominem statements (like what does me being in my 40's have to do with anything? etc)- and other unsupportable positions - such as claiming that one who believes in the principles of evolution is arrogant because they know all the answers (well again you misunderstand science) - but what more I can do to explain it all to your feeble mind I do not know....

It is a fallacy to claim that because the National Academy of Sciences supports evolution, and by you offering a link to them, thereby sustains your argument or somehow makes evolution valid. Officialdom doesn't mean anything. Now, you hit the keyword in your post about evolution, when you said believe.

[Anonymouse]

Mailbag: Evolution vs. Creationism
From: "Yaakov"
Subject: Evolution

Yaakov: As the phenomena of evolution to complex organisms has never been witnessed and is intrinsially unreproducible, it is clearly not a science and not given to scientific experimentation. It is therefore a religion.


Interestingly, much the same could be said for current statements about plate tectonics or what goes on in stars. Who has been to the center of the earth? Who has seen what goes on inside a star? No one has - but we are able to make informed statements about the relevant events based upon what we do witness. The fact of the matter is, the characteristics of "unreproducible" and "never been witnessed" are not the characteristics of a religion. For Yaakov to state that they are suggests that he doesn't know what a religion is. Which seems odd, if he is the observant Jew he claimed elsewhere to be.

Also, for Yaakov to suggest that much of geology, astronomy, etc. are "not science" also suggests that he doesn't know what science is. So perhaps it is easy for him to confuse the two subjects?

Yaakov: I don' know what a true "science" is, but it is important to differentiate between theories and things that can be proven through experimentation, i.e., reproducible results.

Yes, I agree that Yaakov has no idea what genuine science is - a really pitiful state for a doctor to be in. How on earth did he manage to become American Board Certified? Perhaps prospective doctors should be expected to know something about science and biology generally rather than just medicine in particular.

Proof through experimentation is indeed one facet of science, no question about it. At the same time, astronomy is a science even though no one has reproduced a star in a laboratory. Plate Tectonics is a science even though no one has ever visited the center of the planet. Key to science is testing ideas through observation. Sometimes that occurs in the laboratory, sometimes in the field. Both are equally acceptable - in fact, the latter is often preferable.

He admits that he doesn't know what science is, yet he presumes to preach about how some scientific endeavors don't qualify as science. Why? Because they contradict his religious dogmas.

Evolutionary theory has "unreproducible" characteristics, and a process that has never been witnessed. Science is about what is observable, and testable in the natural world. If it cannot be observed, falsifiable and is not testable it is pseudoscience as Karl Popper states. To quote myself from the previous evolution discussion in this forum, "The history of science is a process of finding descriptive models of the nature around us and with each epoch they change (i.e. from Newtonian physics to Modern Physics ). It is to the point that we delude ourselves into thinking that we are very clever to have been able to figure out how nature really works. We will even go so far as to imagine that we have achieved understanding of the world around us. But on a more serious reflection we realize that all we did was add another name or another word or another guess in the form of a theory. Scientists speak of energy, momentum, wave functions as if they were on the same status as objects of everyday experience such as rocks, trees and water. There is a difference between real and invented concepts. A hypothetical change of a scientific model may do away with some concept such as a black hole as a conceptual entity, but it can't absolve a lake or a canyon. The idea that we can find absolute truths is naive and arrogant. If there are any underlying "truths", our models are just pale approximations of them."

[ArmoBarbi]

I understand how evolution may be considered theory ... but he the f does "creationism" get classified as theory? ... unless you want to classify the easter bunny, santa clause, and elvis being alive as theory as well.

I have thought this before too. Its ok, let them call it what they like, it doesnt change anything.

[Crimson Glow]

Only human arrogance, and arrogant people claim to know all the answers to everything. This usually springs from an insecure attitude of not knowing the whole truth which threatens their grip on reality. Thus by creating dogmas it forms a prism that allows them to breath safely within those confines. Thus by affirming evolution is fact, they are in effect saying evolution is dogma that cannot be questioned. This line of reasoning means they and they alone are possessors of truth while everyone else toils in the fields of misanthropy because they deny the *ding ding ding you guessed it* "fact" of evolution.

It's funny. That almost looks like a paragraph copy/pasted from something I would say. And you've had quite a few similar moments, as of late. Yet, when I say such things, you classify me as a nihilist for it.


As for the discussion at hand, Mouse has pretty much covered my stance. I would just add that the problem with defining evolution as "science" is that it has neither been reproduced nor tested in the field, so comparing it to astronomy, or plate tectonics....it does not fit, as those are both instances of science where we can in some way, shape or form interact with the subjects. Dating fossils, stating direct correlations between the disappearance of one species, and the introduction of another.....we don't have direct interaction with this other than trying to decipher information from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Can we see the plates move? No, not really. But we can measure appropriate information in the here and now, present time, not that I would firmly plant my faith in that, either. And you gotta' stop quoting from biased sources. That's like saying since blah blah blah Christian organization officially believes in God, He exists. I could site you quite a few examples in the health industry alone where "science" has PROVEN something safe for consumption, then through research, has found something to change their minds, then through FURTHER research, has changed their minds back again. Pretty solid stuff!

Perhaps the problem here is beliefs vs. opinions/theories, which ironically (as the word was tossed around quite a bit in this discussion), a scene from Dogma sums up my views on:

"I just think it's better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. People die for them. People kill for them."

If it is your idea/opinion that evolution is the missing link between species, then you are certainly entitled to it, and as more information/opinions become available, may be prone to changing it. If it is your belief that evolution is the answer, then you have committed yourself to only one possibility, and will reject all other ideas no matter how possible, probable, or plausible they are. It is a sad state to be in, considering we've narrowed down something as complex as "how we got here" to merely either creationism, or evolution.

With anything in life, there are so many variables to take into consideration, I don't see how anyone can concretely believe in anything.

[Anonymouse]

It's funny. That almost looks like a paragraph copy/pasted from something I would say. And you've had quite a few similar moments, as of late. Yet, when I say such things, you classify me as a nihilist for it.


As for the discussion at hand, Mouse has pretty much covered my stance. I would just add that the problem with defining evolution as "science" is that it has neither been reproduced nor tested in the field, so comparing it to astronomy, or plate tectonics....it does not fit, as those are both instances of science where we can in some way, shape or form interact with the subjects. Dating fossils, stating direct correlations between the disappearance of one species, and the introduction of another.....we don't have direct interaction with this other than trying to decipher information from hundreds to thousands of years ago. Can we see the plates move? No, not really. But we can measure appropriate information in the here and now, present time, not that I would firmly plant my faith in that, either. And you gotta' stop quoting from biased sources. That's like saying since blah blah blah Christian organization officially believes in God, He exists. I could site you quite a few examples in the health industry alone where "science" has PROVEN something safe for consumption, then through research, has found something to change their minds, then through FURTHER research, has changed their minds back again. Pretty solid stuff!

Perhaps the problem here is beliefs vs. opinions/theories, which ironically (as the word was tossed around quite a bit in this discussion), a scene from Dogma sums up my views on:

"I just think it's better to have ideas. I mean, you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. People die for them. People kill for them."

If it is your idea/opinion that evolution is the missing link between species, then you are certainly entitled to it, and as more information/opinions become available, may be prone to changing it. If it is your belief that evolution is the answer, then you have committed yourself to only one possibility, and will reject all other ideas no matter how possible, probable, or plausible they are. It is a sad state to be in, considering we've narrowed down something as complex as "how we got here" to merely either creationism, or evolution.

With anything in life, there are so many variables to take into consideration, I don't see how anyone can concretely believe in anything.

Wow, could it be? We actually agree? Well, I'll be damned...