Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Lamb Boy]

My girlfriend tells me that evolution is now a recoginzed fact which I didn't believe entirely at first and then I found this article on the subject...

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When my girlfriend mentioned it to me she pointed out how we can still see things evolving today ... bacteria for example that can become resistant to antibiotics. Anyway the article is right on and if you still think it's only a theory then

[Anonymouse]

My girlfriend tells me that evolution is now a recoginzed fact which I didn't believe entirely at first and then I found this article on the subject...

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When my girlfriend mentioned it to me she pointed out how we can still see things evolving today ... bacteria for example that can become resistant to antibiotics. Anyway the article is right on and if you still think it's only a theory then

I think this comes from the elasticity of the definition. No one on this side of the fence disputes that there are adaptational changes or within species variation, what we popularly term, micro evolution. If you define "evolution", as being microevolution, sure, that is observable and is fact.

However, do bacteria become anything other than bacteria? That is the crux of the matter, the macroevolutionary changes. And since that is not observable, nor has anything in the past been observed, other than being alleged, we cannot know, thus that is why it is conjecture.

So before we proceed, it's helpful to know what exactly are we talking about by "evolution".

[winoman]

I think this comes from the elasticity of the definition. No one on this side of the fence disputes that there are adaptational changes or within species variation, what we popularly term, micro evolution. If you define "evolution", as being microevolution, sure, that is observable and is fact.

However, do bacteria become anything other than bacteria? That is the crux of the matter, the macroevolutionary changes. And since that is not observable, nor has anything in the past been observed, other than being alleged, we cannot know, thus that is why it is conjecture.

So before we proceed, it's helpful to know what exactly are we talking about by "evolution".

When is the last time you have seen a black hole or a pulsar (that perhaps could be one as well) etc - and so on and so forth - are these merely alleged? Are they mearly a belief - no better then any other belief? Should we also believe in the Pink Pony or that the moon is made of cheese? Well I think there are reasons why some "beliefs" are considered scientific and factual (as much as something can be thought to be factual) and other beliefs are merely speculation. All the basic tenents of Evolution have passed every Scientific test and are based on good science - as good as anything that passes for Science in the field of astronamy and perhaps better as it has been (unsucessefully) challanged more and has passed more tests and such do to its making supersticious people like you uncomfortable and all worked up. As i have said before the issue is not that there is any real reason to doubt evolution - you have certainly not offered up anything - only your pathetic whine - "its just a belief - waah" No - the issue is that Science - this Science in particular - threatens your supersticios beliefs - and this is fundementally your only reason for making such a fuss about Evolution - and not some other Science. And as you have nothing to offer to actually discredit Evolution - you retreat back to what is basically an attack on Science and scientific knowledge in general (essentially) - and failing here - you then offer up an incorect definition of science to claim Evolution doesn't meet it...well you'll have to do better then playing this old sorry tune - because it only highlights your intelectual shortcommings and ultimatly exposes your lack of self confidence and your immaturity.

[Anonymouse]

Just when we think that discussion is back to a cordial level, the whino man must come back to derail it again. While accusing me of whining, he himself essentially resorts to the same thing.

When is the last time you have seen a black hole or a pulsar (that perhaps could be one as well) etc - and so on and so forth - are these merely alleged? Are they mearly a belief - no better then any other belief? Should we also believe in the Pink Pony or that the moon is made of cheese? Well I think there are reasons why some "beliefs" are considered scientific and factual (as much as something can be thought to be factual) and other beliefs are merely speculation.

I think it is interesting how you begin your long diatribe by asking me if I have ever seen a black hole or a pulsar. I am assuming you bring these up because you believe them to be science and how can anyone deny science, right? Well my dear winoman, you are in luck! For free, I will bestow upon you the illumination of the ages!

In case you must be wondering what science is, science, at least historically, has been the attempt to find descriptive models of the world around us. I have stated this before on these boards regarding evolution and science, and I will state them again. Science, is knowledge of the world around us. Science has been going on since as far back as when man figured out how to create fire. However, as life progressed the science got more complicated. These descriptive models expanded and changed, and are always changing. What was once though to be science, is now no longer. It used to be alchemists believed they they would find a path to gold, and it was considered good science by many at the time. Then at one point we had Newtonian physics, which was eventually replaced by modern physics. These descriptive models, whether they deal with black holes, pulsars, quarks, or anything else, are conceptual entities.

You can add as many names or as many theories, the mystery behind what these concepts actually are remain as puzzling as ever. You may attempt to equate conceptual entities such as black holes, pulsars, quarks, or wave functions, with everyday objects such as trees, rocks, hills, and water, but it will do you no good. There is a big difference between real and invented concepts. Theoretical changes in scientific models can absolve black holes or pulsars as conceptual entities, but they cannot absolve everyday objects such as trees, rocks or water. Your idea that somehow conjecture equals to absolute truth is arrogant yet naive at the same time.

All the basic tenents of Evolution have passed every Scientific test and are based on good science - as good as anything that passes for Science in the field of astronamy and perhaps better as it has been (unsucessefully) challanged more and has passed more tests and such do to its making supersticious people like you uncomfortable and all worked up. As i have said before the issue is not that there is any real reason to doubt evolution - you have certainly not offered up anything - only your pathetic whine - "its just a belief - waah" No - the issue is that Science - this Science in particular - threatens your supersticios beliefs - and this is fundementally your only reason for making such a fuss about Evolution - and not some other Science. And as you have nothing to offer to actually discredit Evolution - you retreat back to what is basically an attack on Science and scientific knowledge in general (essentially) - and failing here - you then offer up an incorect definition of science to claim Evolution doesn't meet it...well you'll have to do better then playing this old sorry tune - because it only highlights your intelectual shortcommings and ultimatly exposes your lack of self confidence and your immaturity.

The rest of this is nothing more than your measly attempt to trying to find security and comfort in your ideology of scientism. You go on to restate the tautologies and claim I have not offered any legitimate reasons for doubting evolution. Any man made claim has doubts, for man cannot know the answers. Arrogance on the other hand will claim to know all the answers. Therefore, we both know that there are questions that are unanswered and while I may employ scientific inquiry and ask questions, you will blindly believe in the dogma of evolution, all the while accusing those who display inquisitive minds of somehow being prey to "superstition". "Superstition", my dear winoman, is what people make up to explain things when they know that their limited human knowledge cannot explain. It arises from ignorance. Evolutionists are humans therefore they can never claim to have somehow figured out the truth. Ironically, it is you and the same folks who accuse the Bible thumpers of somehow being superstitious when they express beliefs in God or whatever to explain things they cannot ever understand. The same applies to evolutionists, and anyone else who claims to explain everything about life's origins.

That you further claim somehow that some beliefs are more "factual" than others (for how can a belief be factual befuddles me) is an attempt at trying to place values on beliefs, that some beliefs are somehow better than others. You may personally think that evolution is a better belief system than creationism, the creationist thinks that his/her belief is better. You essentially admitted the belief aspect yet at the same time trying to redeem it with the word "factual". Thus you addmited to evolution being a belief, and that is all I was trying to say. Good day.

[winoman]

"ideology of scientism" - hm - well yeah - I certainly can ascribe to such over any alternative you might add...so again we see that you really have no legitimate argument against Evolution - only your conjecture that Science is somehow lacking...well OK - knowledge is not a static thing - but there are tools that humans can avail themselves of for attaining knowledge - and when it comes to the best explanation for the working of the world/universe and such around us - yes - i will rely on science - understanding that knowledge (like organisms and such...) evolve. In the meantime our knowledge of biology and the record of life is best explained by the discoveries and knowledge that corespond to the science of Evolution and not some (based on nothing) mythological precipts. SO you really have nothing to offer to doubt Evolution any more then the explanations of any othe science might be doubted...admit it - you are only proposing that science itself is deficient (again without really offering an alternative nor telling us anything we don't already know/understand) and that any attacks on Evolution (by you or any who harp on such) are essentially spurious and based upon the fact that you hold supersticious beliefs that run counter to the best knowable fact and evidence available to us - much as some Turks who denies the Genocide becuse they choose to believe otherwise in the face of the best evidence to the contrary...guess you are Ok being in such company eh?

[Anonymouse]

"ideology of scientism" - hm - well yeah - I certainly can ascribe to such over any alternative you might add...so again we see that you really have no legitimate argument against Evolution - only your conjecture that Science is somehow lacking...well OK - knowledge is not a static thing - but there are tools that humans can avail themselves of for attaining knowledge - and when it comes to the best explanation for the working of the world/universe and such around us - yes - i will rely on science - understanding that knowledge (like organisms and such...) evolve. In the meantime our knowledge of biology and the record of life is best explained by the discoveries and knowledge that corespond to the science of Evolution and not some (based on nothing) mythological precipts. SO you really have nothing to offer to doubt Evolution any more then the explanations of any othe science might be doubted...admit it - you are only proposing that science itself is deficient (again without really offering an alternative nor telling us anything we don't already know/understand) and that any attacks on Evolution (by you or any who harp on such) are essentially spurious and based upon the fact that you hold supersticious beliefs that run counter to the best knowable fact and evidence available to us - much as some Turks who denies the Genocide becuse they choose to believe otherwise in the face of the best evidence to the contrary...guess you are Ok being in such company eh?

Socrates once said that "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all".

There is alot of wisdom in that quote that dogmatists can use. We have already painted the pages with questions regarding evolution, questions that have gone unanswered. A scientific theory that is based on circumstantial evidence and conjecture is not much of a theory. I have already pointed out the difference between what is observable (microevolution) and what has never been observed but only alleged (macroevolution). Unless you can come up with the missing evidence that would require to make that logical jump, all your whining and ad hominem will not redeem your position, but only make you look more like the fundamentalists which you are so against.

As far as comparing me with a Turk who denies the Genocide, or comparing evolution, a scientific theory, with the Genocide, a historical event, is absurd and I won't even begin to address the absurdity of that. That you made such a claim is indicative of desperation, that you will type anything in your post, so long as it somehow "smears" me, but which in reality, has nothing to do with either the subject matter at hand, nor a logical analogy.

[skhara]

Wow what an interesting debate. And all the while I've been ignoring this topic. And now decided to read it.

For self-amusement I decided to 'grade' the debaters who have made at least a couple debating posts.

Here is my break down:

Red: B
Siggie: B
Anonymous: A
Lamb Boy: B+
winoman: F-

[Sip]

Giving anon an A and wino an F- on such a polar debate only indicates which side you believe.

[axel]

My previous message must have been of zero entropy (in shannon's acceptation of the word) for its deletion to be justified. I infer that my statement regarding thoth's mental abilities is taken as a tautology.

[winoman]

Sorry to all the nobrains who deny evolution (or the Armenian Genocide for that matter)...the evidence for the truth of Evolution is overwhelming - fossile evidence, DNA evidence, observable evidance based on speciation and environment. All your blabber to the contrary has not offered any alternative or reason to doubt the ovewhelming fossile record and the huge scientific basis for belief in Evolution.

Thus as I said before your attack is an attrack against Scientific knowledge itself. And while I fully admit that such knowledge is evolving (just like biology itself) - it is through Scientific understanding and not just supersticious conjecture or consulting crystal balls or such that we can best know about the world, universe and reality around us. Is it the complete, accurate, do all and end all answer to everything? Of course not and no intelligent person would ever claim such - so it is you who are arguing non-points - all around. Evolution is good Science - I have never seen a balck hole nor the birth of a Supernova or the inteworkings of the atom and beyond - yet I trust in the accepted Science to give me the best information - that I as a non-specialist cannot take the time to be fully educated in all areas to fully understand all the theories, evidence and such myself - so I understand some basics enough for things to make some sense - or even if they may not - I at least accept the Science and know that it is the best we have but that every passing day will bring us new discoveries and uncover aspects of true wonders of the universe. Those who - by their willful ignorance - choose to ignore the wonders brought to us by the knowledge imparted by the various biological sciences that adhere to the reality inherent within the Theory of Evolution - are just missing out - and your protests of such really are pathetic in the scheme of things.