Evolution; A challenge.

[cyghost]

**** me. Concise, accurate, simple and used own words. Frankly, I'm flabbergasted.

Where is the applause emoticon when you need it?

 

[Techne]

The role that fitness plays in evolution is a hot topic of debate. There are at least two ways that scientists and philosophers view fitness. The propensity view of fitness views fitness as a probabilistic propensity while the statistical view sees fitness as a subjective probability. The propensity view sees fitness as a causal factor while the statistical view "deprives fitness of any causal or explanatory power".

It is an ongoing discussion and here are a view articles discussing this hot topic in evolutionary biology.
Selection and Causation
Fitness and Propensity’s Annulment?
Fitness (Stanford Encyclopaedia)
Matthen and Ariew’s Obituary for Fitness: Reports of its Death have been Greatly Exaggerated

 

[alloytoo]

No creative powers, it can only change existing matter.

Change in existing matter constitutes a change in "information."

 

[Forrest]

That to a creationist, evolution cannot be true, not because the evidence says so, but because their faith based belief system dictates that no matter what, they must reject it.

No actually most sane people won't believe something that may not be true just because someone claim they should.

The thing is, often what gets said in objection to evolution, is stuff like 'how can you believe we come from monkeys?!!?!?'.

Which leads me to think, that while many of the objections do indeed stem from theological sources, the bottom line is that people are rejecting something which they don't understand at all, and is not difficult in any sense to have a basic understanding of.

The reason people aren't responding to this thread is because they can't, as I knew they would not be able to without betraying their tremendous lack of knowledge about something which they summarily reject. Which then leads to the obvious question of how they can reject something they don't have the slightest understanding of, which would paint them into a corner they would prefer to avoid, I'd imagine.

Oh I can assure you I don't have a 'tremendous' lack of knowledge about the subject and I still reject it. This one is getting old now so please lay it to rest. Have you considered that maybe the reason people don't respond is because the questions don't prove the premise or are irrelevant? Now if you are saying that they prove evolution true then you must show how that is the case first. We can't simply accept that if the questions are not answered it shows the person has no valid reason to object to evolution based only on your say-so.

Each of those 5 subjects consists of volumes of information. The article is poorly written and does not address anything that needs to be refuted. If there is then explain what proves evolution that we should refute. I can assure you I can but judging from your responses to this it doesn't seem like you understand the subject sufficiently and applying your own logic here you can therefor not just accept it as true. Once you do that I'll be happy to entertain you and answer your 5 (now 8) questions.

As for your contention here that we didn't evolve from apes (monkeys in your words), what you don't realise is that the most recent common ancestor we supposedly evolved from is still an ape. I have never seen an evolutionist classify it as anything else. You'll be the first.

 

[Forrest]

Evolution is without question, fact. I've never once doubted it because, well, it and the speed of light are both the most well documented scientific theories.

Bollocks

It's quite paramount to understand the beings that you are dealing with when you trying to convince creationists that it doesn't add up. Those people don't want to accept it, and they probably never will. It's the same problem that you deal with when you have someone that is incompetent. Because they are incompetent, they don't know that they are incompetent, which leads them to create a false sense of security in thinking they are competent, which further displays their incompetence. If you tried tell them otherwise, their own arrogance blocks out your opinion and they will either only accept your opinion if it agrees with theirs, otherwise it's not correct (to them).

you are better off just telling fools be fools, because unless they figure out that they being foolish, they just won't accept anything you say.

It cuts both ways.

 

[alloytoo]

As for your contention here that we didn't evolve from apes (monkeys in your words), what you don't realise is that the most recent common ancestor we supposedly evolved from is still an ape. I have never seen an evolutionist classify it as anything else. You'll be the first.

Our most recent common ancester evolved into two types of apes. Pan and Homo.

 

[copacetic]

Badly written article, blah, blah, refuse to answer, clearly OP doesn't know his arse from his elbow, etc, etc.

 

[Forrest]

Thanks for misrepresenting me. My offer still stands though.

 

[Techne]

Hi Forrest,

Welcome .

I am interested in your reasons for rejecting evolution (if you do).

1) Do you reject it because of the idea of common descent? In other words the idea that humans and bananas have a common ancestor some time in the history of life on earth
2) Do you reject evolution because of the idea of "natural selection" somehow refutes the design argument i.e. Paley's watchmaker argument (as pointed out here)?
3) Do you think evolution is some sort of argument against God or religion?
4) Any other?

 

[copacetic]

 

[copacetic]

In any case, no one is saying that's how it is.

That's what we kinda hope science does, is finding out the truth
while this means "we're not sure, but it seems to be the case".

And it is so far the best method we have of getting there. That does not mean new evidence and observations cannot take place, to supersede existing ideas. This is a great strength, not a weakness.

This is not how science works. What's being said is 'this is what the evidence currently points to'.

Look I also understand that science is a journey of understanding in it's own right. There's many respected scientists whom also don't buy into common decent. Why?

Well, if the scientific method decided that at some arbitrary point truth was decided, then it would forever be blocked from further knowledge (much like religious dogma for example) - This is absolutely the very worst way to find out the truth about anything.

That being said, there are things we know are true as much as we can know anything is true. Evolution is one of those things, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not perfect however, and details are still and will still be threshed out far into the future, but this is the case with all scientific theories, they are always improving as we gain new knowledge.

If you have an alternate way to determine truth about reality, I'm all ears.

Who are these many respected scientists who don't buy into common descent? I've no doubt there are some, but I strongly suspect the number you will present will be absolutely minuscule compared to the number of scientists who have no quarrel with the notion....

 

[Forrest]

lol it's the guy that puts his foot in his mouth every time he opens it again. He pretty much is seen more as a philosopher amongst his colleagues and lately he's rejected by his fellow atheists as well. Perhaps he should have stuck with philosophy rather than his failed attempt at satire. If you are going to use that argument you still have not shown us that you understand it and therefor can't accept it. Try broadening your horizon and read some stuff besides from the main evolutionists that constantly make the headlines and you'll learn something.

And it is so far the best method we have of getting there.

The best is not always THE BEST just as the truth is not always THE TRUTH.
I know you are probably sick of hearing it because you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, but it IS just a theory. You seem to be struggling with the meaning of a theory because you want to pretend it is something more.

Well, if the scientific method decided that at some arbitrary point truth was decided, then it would forever be blocked from further knowledge (much like religious dogma for example) - This is absolutely the very worst way to find out the truth about anything.

So we are on the same page then. Why do you then pretend to know the truth?

Broaden your horizon and read what Gould and Eldredge have to say. The gaps in the fossil record are real. We didn't imagine them. Not only that but there are gaps in all the most important places. Animals and plants appear suddenly and in most cases disappear just as abruptly with virtually no change. In most of the few cases where there are change it's a change in size, or as we call it traits. Then there's the fact that for the last half a billion years there's no occurrence of evolution producing any novel structures. It's all just a rearrangement of structures that appear in the space of only a few million years. Make no mistake about it the fossil record is more in support of special creation than gradual evolution.

Even in the face of the evidence not lining up in support of evolution both of them will still reject creation. Embarrassingly scientists have already decided the truth then. In recent times a few have however admitted to only believing in evolution because it's the best alternative against God. Why don't you admit that the best explanation is simply the best explanation for you?

That being said, there are things we know are true as much as we can know anything is true. Evolution is one of those things

And look at the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[porchrat]

I know you are probably sick of hearing it because you refuse to hear anything to the contrary, but it IS just a theory. You seem to be struggling with the meaning of a theory because you want to pretend it is something more.

What exactly do you think the definition of 'theory' is?

I used to think it was a relatively well understood word but since coming here I've realised the vast majority of people actually don't know what it means.

Even in the face of the evidence not lining up in support of evolution both of them will still reject creation. Embarrassingly scientists have already decided the truth then. In recent times a few have however admitted to only believing in evolution because it's the best alternative against God. Why don't you admit that the best explanation is simply the best explanation for you?

Please provide evidence of these claims.

Those people are definitely not speaking in their capacity as scientists. To do so would be a mockery of all that science stands for. Science doesn't deny gods, it just ignores them altogether. After all nothing to do with gods is scientific.

 

[copacetic]

What exactly do you think the definition of 'theory' is?

I used to think it was a relatively well understood word but since coming here I've realised the vast majority of people actually don't know what it means.

hence the link to this:

This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

In the first post.

It's getting ignored, no surprise.

 

[porchrat]

Meh the Forrest dude may just not be used to forums and instead of checking out the OP as the first stop when commenting on a thread decided to just post.

I'm sure we have all done it at some point.

Now that it has been shown to him he will probably look it up and grow from the experience.

 

[copacetic]

Meh the Forrest dude may just not be used to forums and instead of checking out the OP as the first stop when commenting on a thread decided to just post.

I'm sure we have all done it at some point.

Now that it has been shown to him he will probably look it up and grow from the experience.

You are really glass half full kind of dude, aren't you?

*edit*

Or alternatively, you are trying my tactics now.

 

[porchrat]

You are really glass half full kind of dude, aren't you?

I like to see the best in people. Sometimes it leads to trolls messing with me but hopefully even the troll learns something from the encounter.

*edit*

Or alternatively, you are trying my tactics now.

Nah way too subtle for me. I just genuinely hope the guy learns something. After all what is the point of knowledge if you don't share it.

 

[cyghost]

I used to think it was a relatively well understood word but since coming here I've realised the vast majority of people actually don't know what it means.

I had this problem - before I got involved in forums, I used to believe that everyone accepted the theory of evolution and that fringe nutters were the only one who asks stupid questions like "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys", used canards like "Even Darwin recanted on his death bed" etc etc. What a surprise it was to find the ignorance far more wide spread than I though and it doesn't seem to have changed much.

For instance, just recently I saw someone using Anthony Flew again whom is a relatively recent addition to the Lying Brigade's armory and I just couldn't deal with it. Shame on me.

 

[Forrest]

What exactly do you think the definition of 'theory' is?

Not fact or truth as you make it out to be that's for sure.

I used to think it was a relatively well understood word but since coming here I've realised the vast majority of people actually don't know what it means.

Me too. Then I met these evolutionists and found out you have no idea.

Please provide evidence of these claims.

This coming from someone that has not bothered to give a single shred of evidence I'm not going to even bother. You claim to have the superior knowledge so after telling you who some of them are you can do your own digging and read something that does not conform to your idea of how things are for a change.

Those people are definitely not speaking in their capacity as scientists.

And you are? LMFAO

To do so would be a mockery of all that science stands for.

And again you would know that how? You are making a mockery of science making claims you cannot make.

Science doesn't deny gods, it just ignores them altogether. After all nothing to do with gods is scientific.

Ignoring facts staring you in the face is not an objective way of reasoning. Luckily not all scientists do that.

hence the link to this:



http://evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

In the first post.

It's getting ignored, no surprise.

Several people from both sides have told you that your examples are not worth the links pointing to them. Yet you still refuse to give your own understanding of the subject(s). I accept you don't understand it and just believe because you want to believe. Faith

Now that it has been shown to him he will probably look it up and grow from the experience.

Nah way too subtle for me. I just genuinely hope the guy learns something. After all what is the point of knowledge if you don't share it.

Says he that hasn't even tried sharing any knowledge. Your insult is a good illustration of your ignorance though

 

[Forrest]

I had this problem - before I got involved in forums, I used to believe that everyone accepted the theory of evolution and that fringe nutters were the only one who asks stupid questions like "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys", used canards like "Even Darwin recanted on his death bed" etc etc. What a surprise it was to find the ignorance far more wide spread than I though and it doesn't seem to have changed much.

And I used to think only fringe nutters would actually accept it as fact we evolved from monkeys (joke in case you're going to be so pedantic). Then I learned the ignorance runs rampant in both camps. At least I found that some are willing to be educated. Just recently saw one convert back to christianity.

"I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." (Luke 15:7)

For instance, just recently I saw someone using Anthony Flew again whom is a relatively recent addition to the Lying Brigade's armory and I just couldn't deal with it. Shame on me.

A new addition to the evidence againts evolution? Well what do ya now.