I am not an ape!

[Surlethe]

Why do people seem to expect a perfect fossil record of every when fossilization is such a rare event?

They don't. They just enjoy drawing a false dilemma between "perfect fossil record" and "no fossil record". Essentially, they're setting the required level of demonstratory proof impossibly high.

[Vendetta]

Why do people seem to expect a perfect fossil record of every when fossilization is such a rare event?

Because they're ignorant.

Because they don't actually know even the basics of the geological processes that laid those fossils down, and so assume that everything must have survived in some permanent form.

Try telling them to ask an archaeologist. Compeared to paleontology, archaeology is something we put down just a minute ago, and we still have a hard enough time finding.

[Rye]

And of course, Time can degrade fossils pretty quickly.

Do you realise how long ago the Cambrian era was?

[Dakarne]

By Pretty Quickly, I mean, degrade them to a point where they're imperfect by the time of discovery...

[Vendetta]

It's not time that's the problem, it's the process by which the fossil becomes embedded in the rock.

Hint: That usually means a fuckload of pressure, even for relatively benign sedimentary rocks, and for other rocks can mean impressive levels of heat. And that assumes that the creature was intact when it died, and remained intact long enough to be fossilised.

[Max]

Is there a list of authorities on evolution? Scientists? Philosophers? Some people I can quote? Someone on another board keeps quoting 'authorities' claiming that Darwin and Evolution are impossible. I just want to be able to play the same game with him, or something.

A funny quote to begin my rebuttle. “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.”

“There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”--Chandra Wickramasinghe, highly acclaimed British scientist.

Irving Kristol says: “Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. .*.*. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.” (he's a New York University professor, though from 1986).

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”--Dr.*Karl Popper

GUESS WHAT? IF IT CAN'T BE TESTED, IT'S NOT SCIENCE

So, why is evolution still being taught as fact, when it is utterly obvious that it isn't?



I can read, you can read. I paint no bias on the quotes of these people. They speak for themselves.

And since Rensa is a numbers man, I found this interesting factoid.

Guess what the odds are of a protein molecule forming at random in organic soup?10^113. Mathematically, that's impossible.

And what of the odds concerning 2000 necessary proteins to serve as enzymes for the cells activity? What are the odds that they are at random?
10^40,000

Talking about that statistic...

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Robert Hoyle, astronomer

[DPDarkPrimus]

“There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”--Chandra Wickramasinghe, highly acclaimed British scientist.

Seeing as Wickramasinghe is an astronomer, she is not an authority on biology, so this is an appeal to authority.

Irving Kristol says: “Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. .*.*. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.” (he's a New York University professor, though from 1986).

Irving Kristol is a NYU professor... of history. Appeal to authority, once again.

There are gaps in the fossil record, and there always will be, but there are hardly "too many" gaps. I'd like to see this "geological evidence" of his. His ranting about laboratory experiments is irrelevent, because speciation takes a goddamn long time. There are plenty of species observable in the world that are obviously in transition- such as the cormorant. There are plenty of accepted scientific theories that are not practically testable because of the length of time it would take- this does not invalidate the theories.

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”--Dr.*Karl Popper

Oh look, a philosopher!

GUESS WHAT? IF IT CAN'T BE TESTED, IT'S NOT SCIENCE

The boy doesn't understand science. Go link him to stuff about the scientific method.

So, why is evolution still being taught as fact, when it is utterly obvious that it isn't?

Throwing around a bunch of quotes from people unqualified to critique biology does not disprove evolution.


I can read, you can read. I paint no bi

Guess what the odds are of a protein molecule forming at random in organic soup?10^113. Mathematically, that's impossible.

And what of the odds concerning 2000 necessary proteins to serve as enzymes for the cells activity? What are the odds that they are at random?
10^40,000

No, that's NOT mathematically impossible. And this doofus ignores the fact that the simplest lifeform living today is unimaginably more complex than the first lifeform.

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Robert Hoyle, astronomer

Another astronomer! My, will these appeals to authority never cease?

[Surlethe]

There are gaps in the fossil record, and there always will be, but there are hardly "too many" gaps. I'd like to see this "geological evidence" of his. His ranting about laboratory experiments is irrelevent, because speciation takes a goddamn long time. There are plenty of species observable in the world that are obviously in transition- such as the cormorant. There are plenty of accepted scientific theories that are not practically testable because of the length of time it would take- this does not invalidate the theories.

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory: TalkOrigins is a fucking awesome source for these debates.

[DPDarkPrimus]

There are gaps in the fossil record, and there always will be, but there are hardly "too many" gaps. I'd like to see this "geological evidence" of his. His ranting about laboratory experiments is irrelevent, because speciation takes a goddamn long time. There are plenty of species observable in the world that are obviously in transition- such as the cormorant. There are plenty of accepted scientific theories that are not practically testable because of the length of time it would take- this does not invalidate the theories.

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory: TalkOrigins is a fucking awesome source for these debates.

Even better, then.

Be careful though, some people will dismiss TalkOrigins out of hand.

[Rye]

Is there a list of authorities on evolution? Scientists? Philosophers? Some people I can quote? Someone on another board keeps quoting 'authorities' claiming that Darwin and Evolution are impossible. I just want to be able to play the same game with him, or something.

He is playing the quote mining game. Every time he gives a quote from an "authority" (which could be any number of things, since he just copied it from a creationist website) copy paste the quote or the authority's name plus "quote mine" into google. It will hopefully give you the surrounding context of the quote and a response.

In addition, you can play your own quote mining game with creationists, with the bible, you can go:

"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1), "The Lord . . . is evil." (Genesis 8:21), using much of the same context removal of creationists.

Anyway, regarding the actual post of the guy:

A funny quote to begin my rebuttle. “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.”

Of course, you would have to be a loon to assert that entire fields of science, mainly biology, cosmology, geology and paleontology (though all biology, chemistry and physics related fields would have to be lying for creationist claims to be true) are all conspiring against The Holy Word of Christ by teaching EVIL-u-shun, presumably as part of the homosexual agenda to recruit children or something.

“There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”--Chandra Wickramasinghe, highly acclaimed British scientist.

This quote is from "Science and the Divine Origin
of Life," in The Intellectuals Speak Out About God, Regnery, 1984, p. 30. At any rate, he's an astronomer and not a biologist, and he's fucking wrong.

Basic tenets of modern darwinian evolution: Genetic inheritance, genetic change, reproduction, natural selection.

Example: VRSA evolution. Nylon Eating Flavobacteria and observed speciation.

Now, demand your opponent refute those examples, appealing to astronomers about biology will not suffice.

Irving Kristol says: “Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth, it is nothing of the sort.

"Usually taught as scientific truth"? That would be a problem with the teaching, not the science, since science shouldn't ever be taught like that; it's logical extrapolation from the evidence, not holiest absolute truth. How do these morons get jobs?

It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect.

More on this claim here.

I post this response whenever this claim comes up:

"Fossilisation is a rare event, and this claim appears to ignore how many transitionals we have found because it's convenient. Transitional fossils are fossils that exhibit traits of more than one other species (and will probably diverge into those species). For instance, all ceratopsidae share traits with protoceratops, who came earlier, and from the looks of it, diverged into all the others. Archaeopteryx is a dinobird, of which there are several examples. Archy itself may not be the common ancestor for all birds (as some quotes may say) but it is definitely a transitional.

Some examples of transitionals:

Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga

Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius. Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops. Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor. Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, PrTransitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus."

Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another,

That's because organisms don't evolve into one another. They evolve into new organisms that are varied from the preceding organisms. This "authority" is arguing against a strawman. Wow, so credible.

even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. .*.*. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.” (he's a New York University professor, though from 1986).

They don't change into another currently existing organism, perhaps in a whole different kingdom (like a dog into a pinecone as kent hovind once said), however, speciation has been observed. As well as the links I gave, Talkorigins has a list of observed speciation events.

“I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”--Dr.*Karl Popper

So? Who the hell is Dr. Karl Popper? Why does his opinion matter in the face of the facts? Does he think that putting a penguin in the Sahara will not incur natural selection? Does he think that we've not observed speciation, that antibiotics resistance does not evolve? Would he rub an open wound on an MRSA patient?

GUESS WHAT? IF IT CAN'T BE TESTED, IT'S NOT SCIENCE

And it can be tested, so this isn't a problem!

So, why is evolution still being taught as fact, when it is utterly obvious that it isn't?

So that children will REJECT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. Obviously.

Guess what the odds are of a protein molecule forming at random in organic soup?10^113. Mathematically, that's impossible.

"Protein" and "forming at random" are not words that go together. Please show your work on how you derived the number and explain why it's at all pertinent if we know for a fact that proteins did occur? Oh wait, were you trying to say that improbability of an unknown event means God did it, somehow? Also: remember Fred Hoyle believed in panspermia. He's the source for that number.

And what of the odds concerning 2000 necessary proteins to serve as enzymes for the cells activity? What are the odds that they are at random?
10^40,000

Again, 1) show your work, 2) show how it is pertinent if we know it happened, 3) "random" is a stupid word to use regarding chemistry and natural selection. Stop being retarded.

Talking about that statistic...

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.” Robert Hoyle, astronomer

He's not advocating abiogenesis by magic, you moron, he's advocating panspermia. Fuck!

Be careful though, some people will dismiss TalkOrigins out of hand

So? Just claim victory if they do that.

[Max]

Oh...my.......god.

He got his friend involved.

Cool down, Max.
You're wrong about almost everything you've said.
I would go into detail, but I can see already that you just won't get it.
If all the evidence in the world pointed to Creation, and most of it does, you would still try to disprove it.
Talk back about me all you like and say things about how dumb I am.
I really don't mind.
I'm not going to argue with you, bud.
I know I'm right and I know you're wrong.

Love,
Nick

To which I told him to stop spamming, unless he's going to offer something relevent to the topic.

[WyrdNyrd]

If all the evidence in the world pointed to Creation, and most of it does, you would still try to disprove it.

I find it greatly amusing that Creationsists continually accuse "evolutionists" of the very same abuses that they routinely commit, like being close-minded, ignoring evidence, being in collusion with each other, et.

[LapsedPacifist]

I have the issue of Skeptical Inquirer with the article "Did Popper Refute Evolution?" (sept/oct 2004) handy.

"Popper famously retracted his comments once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory than he understood from a cursory examiniation of the subject: "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346)." (si 15)

He recanted when he learned that it actually was possible for biologist to predict advantageous traits, measure them in a current population, wait for the next generation, and then measure them again to test the hypothesis.

LP

[Majin Gojira]

If all the evidence in the world pointed to Creation, and most of it does, you would still try to disprove it.

I find it greatly amusing that Creationsists continually accuse "evolutionists" of the very same abuses that they routinely commit, like being close-minded, ignoring evidence, being in collusion with each other, et.

And that is the beautiful irony of the whole argument. Projection is a funny thing...

[Max]

Have at it people...it's the same guy...but this makes me wonder if he's going to, say, a pastor at his church to get his rebuttles.

You just don't get it. Evolution is struggling to keep people blind to quite obvious truths. Evolution is nowhere even close to a fact, it's a hypothesis at best. And this thread started off with evolution being taught in schools. It's not scientific fact. When I went into chemistry and astronomy and human biology, I was learning scientific fact. I didn't dispute it. I actually enjoyed science greatly. It's very fascinating to me. But I know where to draw the line between ignorance and fact. There is no way that evolution will ever be proven correct. And MAX, if you can't accept that...heh...I just don't know.


“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. . . . Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”

“If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.”

both quotes by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania (as of 1997).

Scientists are bullied into accepting evolution. Peer pressure isn't limited to kids with marijuana in the school hallway.

EDIT: you were talking about "appeals to authority"? There is NO authority on the subject, especially when the scientific community, especially your precious biologists, are too afraid to speak out, lest they lose the support of their colleagues and their reputations. The people who do speak out, such as astronomers, are not ignorant on the tenants of evolution. As a matter of fact, quoting people like them strengthens the argument, since they, not being such high and mighty and blind evolutionists, can see the awful holes in the logic and the very real absence of fact. Heh. Some of the quoted people even are evolutionists, but all are scientists of some caliber.

[Max]

Can a mod take out the sizing so people can read the middle part? Pretty please?

[Max]

This was my reply (sorry for the triple post, don't kill me)...do you think I should have added more?

You just don't get it. Evolution is struggling to keep people blind to quite obvious truths. Evolution is nowhere even close to a fact, it's a hypothesis at best. And this thread started off with evolution being taught in schools. It's not scientific fact. When I went into chemistry and astronomy and human biology, I was learning scientific fact. I didn't dispute it. I actually enjoyed science greatly. It's very fascinating to me. But I know where to draw the line between ignorance and fact. There is no way that evolution will ever be proven correct. And MAX, if you can't accept that...heh...I just don't know.

When you understand what proof, fact, and hypothesis mean in a scientific context, then I'll bother to respond to that. As of now, I don't think you do.

“If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. . . . Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”

“If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life’s foundation has paralyzed science’s attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism’s universal reach.”

both quotes by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania (as of 1997).

Michael Behe, eh? LOL Do you just cut-n-paste from creationist sites without researching? Behe is a well-known creationist whose arguments have been refuted many times, but I wouldn't expect the person using him as a source to admit that. Feel free to click on the links to read more from the sources I quoted.

Michael Behe.

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity has been rejected by most in the scientific community, many of whom consider it to be creationist pseudoscience.

David Ussery is currently an associate professor at the Center for Biological Sequence analysis (CBS) in the Institute of Biotechnology, on Michael Behe.

• Although Behe says that he believes in "Evolution by common descent" in the introduction, he seems to contradict this later in the book. I am really quite skeptical of the idea of God (or the "Intelligent Designer") creating some amoeba 3.5 billion years ago, with all these IC systems. Why is this any better (or different) than Francis Crick's Panspermia theory, where space aliens seeded the earth with bacteria a couple of billion years ago?
• There are many places where, when the arguments presented can be put to the test, they fail miserably. For example, his insistence of the absence of literature about molecular evolution. This is easy to test, and see that what he is claiming is clearly wrong. This greatly reduces his integrity, in my opinion.
• When reading the book, I get the feeling that Behe is implying some sort of "conspiracy" amongst scientists. I am convinced that what motivates many very good and talented scientists is the desire to be RIGHT and to be the first one who got there.
• The appeal to ignorance of the reader. Many things are said to support his arguments which are simply not true, but the intended reader would likely have no idea of this.

[/size]

I'd advise you to read this link before you post anymore of your quotes. Seriously. Don't skim it either. I'll know if you did.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Since the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

Which is pretty much your tactic.

Scientists are bullied into accepting evolution. Peer pressure isn't limited to kids with marijuana in the school hallway.

Red Herring

EDIT: you were talking about "appeals to authority"? There is NO authority on the subject, especially when the scientific community, especially your precious biologists, are too afraid to speak out, lest they lose the support of their colleagues and their reputations. The people who do speak out, such as astronomers, are not ignorant on the tenants of evolution. As a matter of fact, quoting people like them strengthens the argument, since they, not being such high and mighty and blind evolutionists, can see the awful holes in the logic and the very real absence of fact. Heh. Some of the quoted people even are evolutionists, but all are scientists of some caliber.

If you're honestly not bright enough to wrap your head around what's wrong with their logic, then frankly nothing can be done to save them from their own stupidity. Like I stated originally in this thread. Intelligent Design has no place in a science class room. I don't care if it's taught as in a Theology class along with other myths...but you can't observe or test it. Evolution has been observed and has been tested.