Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[winoman]

I mean this is how I see ppl you refuse to admit the validity of evolution ... the same as *urks that refuse to believe in the Armenian genocide in the face of all of the evidence. Of course nothing can be proven 100% but does that mean that it isn't true just because of that one juvenile point?

exactly. And if Anon understood Science he would understand that scientists believe that nothing is set in stone but that it is a constant process of discovery (using certain accepted means and methodology). However Anon discounts knowledge obtained by science as having any more validity then something he just invents in his head with no reason or proof. Of course he fails to properly even understand what Science is - claiming that it can only tell us about what is directly observable - BUZZZZZ - wrong answer!

And you are right - he is just being a juvenile here...he doesn't like Evolution - because people who believe it offend him - so he is crying about it but he has no real alternative that can at all be taken seriously and his point that it is a belief no better then believeing in the crap he believes in is just a worthless argument with no substance. And in fact the point I have made and have drawn out is that his objection has nothing really specifically to do with Evolution - he just rejects Science (without however having a proper understanding of it....you know the more I see this guy post the more I'm thinking that he really might be pretty smart/gifted for his age...but I think that age might be 11...) - wouldn't at all be surprised.... This (non-bel;ief in knowledge arrived at through science) is why I suggest he use voodo in place of anti-biotics etc. Yeah all beliefs - no matter how nuts - are just as valid - that is his hypothosis - weak and pathetic. All hail the Pink Pony.

[Anonymouse]

Ok Anon I finally see your point. Typically I would expect to hear a hypothesis sooner but whatever.

Now I have to ask you if you feel that evolution and creationism are on equal footing in regards to validity.

See I feel evolution is provable within a 99.99999_% range ... everything else .0000001%.

It's all about the evidence imo and in the opinions of the vast majority of scientists ...

The analogy I am about to create is not meant to offend anyone I am just trying to illustrate a point.

This quote comes from the very first thread/post ckBejug created/posted titled Allow me to introduce myself, then maybe you can do the same ...

disksoleil was talking about the Armenian genocide ....



I mean this is how I see ppl you refuse to admit the validity of evolution ... the same as *urks that refuse to believe in the Armenian genocide in the face of all of the evidence. Of course nothing can be proven 100% but does that mean that it isn't true just because of that one juvenile point? Of course not ... none of us were there except for arabaliozian and maybe a couple of others so we really don't know. All we can do is believe in the evidence provided to us from other ppl which we do. Is it similar to blind faith? I think not as there is plenty of evidence to believe or ignore. Plus my grandparents actually lived through it and a lot of other ppl here probably have know an Armenian or two that lived through it as well, but we can also witness evolution first hand as well.

In the same way evolutionists would ask a creationist "What evidence would it take to prove to you the validity of evolution?" I think we should pose the same question to *urks. Really what more will it take to convince them of the truth?

You did admit that "micro" evolution was real, correct me if I am wrong, and although I know you make a distinction b/w "micro" and "macro" evolution, biologists do not (they are not being arrogant). It seems creationists came up with this view of evolution in an effort to have a catalyst for a contrasting "opinion". What I am driving at is that admitting to the validity of "micro" evolution and speciation is really just admitting the validity of evolution as a whole imo, but I already know you don't see it that way ...

Lamb Boy, I appreciate that you finally have tried to engage in an actual and cordial discussion, I will thus extend the same in return, however, I cannot speak the same for the woman.

The main point at issue with your analogy which I disagree with (and the whining man brought this up as well), is that evolution and the Genocide are not analogous for a variety of reasons. You can find similarities overlapping, just like if we try really hard, we can find similarities overlapping in just about anything, but at the same time, there are many distinctions that need to be made, and which cannot be absolved.

One similarity should be obvious. Both evolution, and the genocide, are not one giant lump of events. It is not an all-or-nothing deal. They do not come in neatly pre-packaged forms to be accepted or dismissed. Like all things, they are a series of events, a series of occurences, a series of processes, a series of claims. That some of those claims within the series of events are disagreed upon, means exactly that.

To illustrate this point, often times, in discussion revolving around the Holocaust, or the Genocide, people are dubbed "deniers" (a term which I find abhorrent and meaningless, nothing more than to be used as a tarbrush of ostracism, the same as the modern accusation of "racist" or "anti-Semite"). When someone is labelled as a "denier", it usually means they deny the neatly packaged idea of what constitutes Genocide, or Holocaust. But, part of the series of events, which fall within the rubric of what we call Genocide, includes relocation and deaths from starvation. Most Turks who deny that there was a concerted effort at eliminating the Armenian population, do not deny the above mentioned facts. Does that make them a "denier"?

The same applies to the Holocaust. Many people are dubbed "deniers", because they question the validity of the methods used to kill xxxs, or the numbers that died, within what we call the Holocaust. You see, it is when we accept certain ideas with a fixed notion of what constitutes that certain idea, in our minds it becomes a nealty pre-packaged, all-or-nothing deal. Then we become victims of a Manichaean trap, where we cannot make the distinctions in-between, but instead see things as black and white.

With that said, evolution and the genocide are not a valid analogy to make. For starters, the series of events that surround the genocide, have more validity and corroboration, than the series of events that surround evolution. The events within the genocide, are amply documented. Furthermore, there are survivors, who have witnessed these events. On top of that, you have outside eyewitnesses to the events within the Genocide. Therefore, the events within the genocide are both documented, as well as observed. Therefore, it meets the basic requirements of historiography.

Evolution, on the other hand, like creationism, or intelligent design, is a claim to truth, about origins. The reason why biologists make no distinction between micro- and macro- is because we all know that the brunt of the whole theory rests more on the idea of macro- than micro-. Let us not kid ourselves, evolution's main purpose at least in this modern period is to counter the religious aspect of origins. It is no wonder, that generally speaking, most evolutionists are either atheists or agnostics. Therefore, the evidence that would be necessary to establish the series of events that surround evolution - that there was a big bang, from which proceeded the long and arduous process of evolution from simple celled organisms to more complex ones - is not observable, it is not reproducible.

The only thing that exists in the present, are fossils. Beyond that, there is no way to repeat the process or observe by which these fossils changed and new ones arrived. It is impossible to establish. These claims about origins are merely stated, but cannot be validated, any more than God creating us. It is impossible for man to know, much less prove, his/her origins. It's an exercise in futility. That is why, where reason ends, faith begins. That, my friend, is where evolution relies on just about as much faith, as do creationists in their belief that God created all of this.

I know it is difficult for evolutionists who are believers of science which relies on evidence, to accept this. It is perhaps insulting to have your cherished theory compared and placed on the altar along with creationism, but that is the way it is. And let's not forget, and recap that science, deals with the natural world around us, with that is testable and observable. When it goes outside of those boundaries, it ceases to be science. It goes beyond its intended purpose, postulating about pasts and origins.

I think, most of the confusion stems from the verbiage used in discussion about evolution. The term itself, "evolution" is a loaded word. It is implied as being a neatly, pre-packaged thing, that you either accept or you do not. It's akin to George Bush's assertions about how you either jump on the anti-terrorism bandwagon, or you're against "us". In all cases of human endeavors, man always creates limitations and dogmas in all his/her ideas, be it religion, or science, or what have you. It's just the way our minds work and we are all guilty of it.

It is claimed that biologists do not make a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. Thus, to biologists, it is all the same. This indicates that they view evolution as an all-or-nothing deal. When man begins to create such boundaries in ideas and thought systems, it is a sign of dogmatism. Think of your garden variety Evangelist who trumpets the same Manichaean dualism with regard to religion. You're either with them or against them.

So by "evolution", we can mean both the changes from the simple celled organisms, to the modern complex organisms and species, or, the minor adaptations and changes different species accrue within themselves, or both. Either way, the language is pliable and elastic and it is important to define what we mean. In order to understand, we have to make these distinctions. For as Alford Korzybski, the father of semantics, stated, "The map is not the territory, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness". This signifies our subjective perception of reality, and language. No one thing will mean the same thing, to different people. That is why, it is important to understand what we mean by "evolution".

I have brought up this point before. If, by "evolution", we are talking about the process by which there was a big bang, and from which simple celled organisms, gradually adapted (ala Darwin), morphed, and changed, giving way to more complex ones, then I have a bone to pick with this. The problems with this, are, as stated, the lack of testability, reproducibility, and observation. What is the big bang? Where was there a big bang? Where did it come from? Why? There is no way an evolutionist can claim these things, precisely without the evidence for which they demand of the creationists about God. Nevermind, that God, can have no evidence, for you can neither prove nor disprove God logically. It is not a logical entity. To an outside observer like me, the biologists, in the absence of religion, and God, created their own origins myth.

The pliable nature of evolution, in my opinion, is highlighted in the constant efforts of trying to patch the theory, i.e. from Darwin's gradualism, to Gould's and Eldridges' punctuated equilibria. It has become a like-class of faith.

If by "evolution", we are talking about all the observable changes within bacteria, or fruitflies, etc, or artificial selection (by the way, artificial selection is not natural selection, for it is humans, using intelligence, to manipulate genes), then we are talking about a form of evolution, that is observable, that is testable, and that does conform to the evidence that is necessary to draw on a conclusion. I don't think I have ever denied these things, and nor do I hope any serious opponent of evolution, creationist or otherwise, would deny these. It would be childish at best, and indicative of ideological bias at least.

Either way, I think I have drawn the point of contention between what we have evidence for, and what is simply accepted upon a leap of faith. It might discomfort you and others, it might be displeasing that I am stating that evolution, or at least (to be fair), part of evolution's claims, is accepted upon faith, but that is the way it is. Bear in mind, I am not attacking evolution from the perspective of God. While I believe in a God, it is not a precondition to agree or disagree with evolution, as there are many scientists who are religious yet who accept evolution. Nor do I believe religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. I am simply approaching this, with the same cold, hard, calculated, and demanding attitude, that any scientist would and should approach any other thing. But it seems that evolution is exempt from this. Anything that claims truths about human origins and destiny, is, by the fact itself, a belief, and accepted on faith. That is all.

[Lamb Boy]

I remember watching a special on Steven Hawkins and how his thesis was to shown how radiation from the Big Bang explosion was still present in space. I am not going to pretend that I think you could actually do that but at the same time I wouldn't be so arrogant to dismiss the thesis of a scientists who most def knows WAAY more than I do on that particular topic.

Then there is "the scientist" ( ) who, by using the Doppler Effect, showed how every galaxy in the observable universe is moving away from each other from the same point. The crazy thing is, and this is where a lot of our own physics breaks down, is that they are accelerating away from each other and not slowing down. Anyway we should just make a thread about the validity of the Big Bang theory ... sorry to have gone off on a tangent ...

Back to the subject at hand (perfection is perfect so just let 'em understand! ) Keep in mind that "macro" and "micro" as two separate parts of evolution is an idea developed by creationists as a catalyst for their own argument, that one shouldn't suprise you.

I already stated that the future will prove evolution even more correct than history already has. Meaning that of course we can't put evolution through the scientific method and expect results overnight, it will take tens of thousands of years to have any semblance of change. Imo will it ultimately be proven w/o a doubt (i.e. making it a 100% truth) over the course of a really long time period? I say yes ... history to some may seem inconsistent on this topic but the future will not be so ambiguous.

Evolution as an idea that surrounds us everyday is observable as everything in this world "is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time.” One last quote I know you hate quotes but ... "It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different."

What happens small happens big. Let us not forget that we are multi-cellular beings. It's like in geometry when we say something is "equivalent to".

Soo now I get to prove that "macro" evolution is around us ... thought I already had (wisdom teeth, tail bone) but so much for thinking! lol I am going to compile a list of all the "macro" evidence I can find and I'll make a list so that then we can discuss the merits of the evidence ... give me a day or so as it's a holiday but I will return muhuahuahahaa!!

P.S. So you like the Lost show huh?

[Anonymouse]

I remember watching a special on Steven Hawkins and how his thesis was to shown how radiation from the Big Bang explosion was still present in space. I am not going to pretend that I think you could actually do that but at the same time I wouldn't be so arrogant to dismiss the thesis of a scientists who most def knows WAAY more than I do on that particular topic.

Then there is "the scientist" ( ) who, by using the Doppler Effect, showed how every galaxy in the observable universe is moving away from each other from the same point. The crazy thing is, and this is where a lot of our own physics breaks down, is that they are accelerating away from each other and not slowing down. Anyway we should just make a thread about the validity of the Big Bang theory ... sorry to have gone off on a tangent ...

Back to the subject at hand (perfection is perfect so just let 'em understand! ) Keep in mind that "macro" and "micro" as two separate parts of evolution is an idea developed by creationists as a catalyst for their own argument, that one shouldn't suprise you.

I already stated that the future will prove evolution even more correct than history already has. Meaning that of course we can't put evolution through the scientific method and expect results overnight, it will take tens of thousands of years to have any semblance of change. Imo will it ultimately be proven w/o a doubt (i.e. making it a 100% truth) over the course of a really long time period? I say yes ... history to some may seem inconsistent on this topic but the future will not be so ambiguous.

Evolution as an idea that surrounds us everyday is observable as everything in this world "is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time.” One last quote I know you hate quotes but ... "It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different."

What happens small happens big. Let us not forget that we are multi-cellular beings. It's like in geometry when we say something is "equivalent to".

Soo now I get to prove that "macro" evolution is around us ... thought I already had (wisdom teeth, tail bone) but so much for thinking! lol I am going to compile a list of all the "macro" evidence I can find and I'll make a list so that then we can discuss the merits of the evidence ... give me a day or so as it's a holiday but I will return muhuahuahahaa!!

P.S. So you like the Lost show huh?

This reminds me of that dictum that was the eternal guide for Agent Mulder, "I Want To Believe".

And yes, Lost is the best show evar!

[Anonymouse]

I already stated that the future will prove evolution even more correct than history already has.

Christians contend that the future will prove they were right and Jesus will return.

Anything that must rely on appeals to emotions, and futures, is not scientific, it is religious.

[bell-the-cat]

[winoman]

Found this on another forum...

Another take on the Evolution vs Armenian Genocide connection...the question/contention from the Turkish side was that Armenians were showing weakness in their argument by not agreeing to Erodogan's offer of a meeting (of historians?) to discuss different points of view... (I approve)

DWielunski

a better analogy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, I'm new.

The "neighbor's kid" analogy was a little confusing with all the different neighbors. Here's mine:

A Christian church that has categorically denied evolution for decades elects a new leader (bishop, pope, whatever) who, while considered a "liberal" within his church, would hardly be characterized as such by the outside world. As an attempted gesture of good-faith and openness, he extends an invitation to several prominent scientists to take part in a a large-scale conference on "Evolutionism vs. Creationism."
The same arguments can be made: "The scientists should win in a slam-dunk," "What have the scientists got to lose?" and "This is a good-faith effort to reach out to the opposite side," etc. However, I would not expect a scientist of any stature to accept such an invitation for the following reasons:

1) The issue in question has been proven beyond any doubt;
2) There is no reason to expect, from the past history of this organization, that a logical argument (in which a conclusion is deduced from established facts) will be an effective technique at this conference;
3) By agreeing to attend, they are implicitly agreeing that there is another side to the issue.

For reputable scientists and historians, evolution and the Armenian genocide are non-issues. Therefore, to participate part in a conference where they would be treated as the intellectual equals of their demagogic counterparts would be insulting and damaging to their reputations.

Does this make sense?

Dan

[Lamb Boy]

Man I was hoping to let this topic go the way of the buffalo but just when I think I'm done Anon "Pulls me back in!" lol

Ok I stated that when I came back I would create a list of as much macro evolution evidence as possible although I already have here and there (i.e. wisdom teeth, appendix, opposable thumbs)

Anyway here is a tantalizing post from another forum that deals strictly with this topic and can be very dry to read so ppl should pay me to go there!

Here we go ... this post is not mine but from a fellow named Mick and here's what he had to offer ...

__________________________________________________ ______

I've always been a bit confused about the distinction between micro and macro that you (and others) have made.

Can you explain what is your procedure for deciding which of the following animals are micro-evolved varieties of a single kind of animal, and which are distinctly different kinds of animal?

Or if any other anti-macro person could explain it to me, for that matter!

1. Saddleback pig


2. Tamworth pig

3. Duroc pig


4. Pot-bellied pig


5. Wild boar


6. White-lipped peccary

7. Collared peccary

8. Chaccoan peccary

9. Celebes wild boar

10. Pygmy hog


11. Javan pig


12. Bearded pig


13. Phillipine warty pig


14. Babirusa (scary pig)

15. Red river hog


16. musk deer
__________________________________________________ _______________

I had to remove some pictures 9 is the limit ...

Here is a link with over 29 evidences of macro evolution in case you're open minded enough to read the article in its entirety ...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

See ppl like Anon won't even read an article like this because he/they has/have already made up his/their mind(s) ...

To quote EZScience from the same forum ...

"Apparently anyone would be wasting their time trying to convince you otherwise because you have already made up your mind !?

I ask you then, why do you waste *your* time entering into this debate in the first place?

Do you want to avail yourself of an opportunity to preach and, at the same time, avoid the opportunity to actually consider other cogent analyses? "

Of course he does he loves to hear the sound of his own fingers typing on the keyboard ...

[winoman]

macro-vs micro issue is not any true issue - it is a semantics exercise put on by those without true understanding or argument - what else is new....

[Anonymouse]

Lamb Boy, what does all this prove? Where is the evidence that pigs somehow evolved from other pre-existing organisms, or humans for that matter? You see, anyone can sit here and type text on the internet and pretend to be genius, like the winoman. I can say the same thing about you Lamb Boy:

"See ppl like Lamb Boy won't even consider an opposing view because he/they has/have already made up his/their mind(s) ..."

It seems evolutionists are uncomfortable with the simple fact that not everyone agrees with their ideology. Would you consider that!? Oh the horror! Apparently, in this world, there is something called disagreement!