The Thinking Mans Thread - Evolution Schmevolution. No Offence to the Ladies.

[BoneDog]

Origin of species, not of life - species originate through evolution because that's what the variation leads to - speciation. The origins of life itself however don't tie into evolution at all.

As I mentioned, aren't there limits to speciation? What do you think to these two articles? Should be of interest to any person who enjoys a slight challenge in the evolution debate.

'Speciation has obviously been frequent in the past, but the question is whether it happened by Darwinian methods. Almost certainly it did not.'

'In his recent book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones.

'It is as though species are surrounded by a "plateau" of limited variability.' - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/natural_limits058791.html

Specious speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - http://www.discovery.org/f/8411

[BoneDog]

Have a look at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial http://en.wikipedia....hool_District)is just the result of religiously indoctrinated people trying to discredit an area of science that does not fit with the fables they believe to be fact.

Not true. It's the neo-Darwinists who are indoctrinated and who don't like to have any challenges to their dogma. They want all scientific evidence that contradicts Darwinism kept out of the classroom.

The first link I posted yesterday before your reply points out that Millers 'Exhibit A' in that trial is likely to be not worthy. That trial was a sham and there are many reasons why. Here's that first link again:

'Dover Revisited - An Icon of the "Junk DNA" Argument Bites the Dust'

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html

There's more here on Judge Jones' ruling at the Dover Trial - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/judge_jones_sai058871.html - I don't think the Dover trial is relevant in 2013.

The bottom two-thirds of this link are regarding Millers scientific assertions.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/KenMillerLectureGuide.pdf

[The Doctor]

As I mentioned, aren't there limits to speciation? What do you think to these two articles? Should be of interest to any person who enjoys a slight challenge in the evolution debate.

'Speciation has obviously been frequent in the past, but the question is whether it happened by Darwinian methods. Almost certainly it did not.'

'In his recent book The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins observes airily that human beings are "distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Yet minutely observant plant breeders, "daily and hourly scrutinizing" their productions (to quote Darwin on natural selection), are unable to turn purple roses into blue ones.

'It is as though species are surrounded by a "plateau" of limited variability.' - http://www.evolution...mits058791.html

Specious speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - http://www.discovery.org/f/8411

And there's a simple explanation to this: Just as breeding two white people doesn't produce an asian child, breeding two plants of the same features won't produce new features - certainly not in a single generation. You've either got to cross breed with blue roses (assuming blue is the dominant allele) until the allele for purple colouration is in such a low relative concentration that purple will never crop up, or you've got to hope that of all the random mutations that could possibly take place, the mutation that results in a blue allele than a purple allele occurs.

Oh - and the second link: **** off. The Discovery Institute is a "christian science" organisation which lies through it's teeth manipulating things in science to try and fit it to their preconceived world view. No-one with even a shred of scientific honesty in their body would give them the time of day.

[Captain...]

How could a single strand catch anything , let alone something as evasive as a fly ? No i really can't accept that , sorry

It's as bad as the theory that birds wings evolved from flappy cooling devices that somehow gradually turned into perfectly designed appendages capable of flight .

But the mental image of SAS type spiders abseiling down from things is quite amusing

What were they living on before they caught flies and why did they need to change?

As I said before , I don't disbelieve the theory, but just find the whole mystery of life too complex to be reduced in this way .

But I do accept that it's probably just me

If you look for holes and unexplained parts you will find them, because, despite what we like to think we really don't know everything. But from what you've said I think you are looking at it in a different way to me, I am no scientist, but with things like webs, spiders use the webs for many things including travelling, and wrapping up their prey and preserving it, some spiders don't build webs. How the evolved into creating what they do now is incredible, and not something I know, and what I find fascinating is instincts how does such a simple creature know how to make these webs, but then how does any animal know how to do anything. Instincts developed to keep things alive, for example small woodland creatures that are afraid of shadows overhead survive a lot longer than those that aren't. They don't know that they are afraid of birds they just know that shadows from above are bad. Likewise spiders just build webs, they don't know why, they just do and those that do it better live longer. Maybe a scientist can confirm if instincts are part of the genetic code, but I feel we still don't fully understand nature vs nurture, especially in animals.

Going back to your other point about species just stopping. This isn't really what happens, typically you would have got a common area with lots of common species, like say horses running round in packs, now at some point one pack of horses moves further and further away from the common ground, looking for food or escaping predators, they up in a more difficult environment, colder, mountainous rugged not much food, trapped there. All the horses on the common ground are living off the nice fertile land and are under no threat so don't evolve. The horses trapped in the happier land don't have big fields to gallop around in, and are struggling in this harsh land food is scarce and winters cold, the smaller animals survive better because they need less food and are more sure footed on the rocky ground and are better able to scrabbld around and find food, the hairy horses can withstand the cold better, after many generations the desirable genes are small hairy and stubborn, these survive longest and therefore are more predisposed to pass on their genes and over generations those horses become donkeys, but the other horses are still horses so they haven't changed. It is not some switch in all members of a species that just suddenly says you are now something else.

Actually having written that it was probably more likely the other way round and pack of donkeys found fertile pastures with plenty of food so being bigger stronger and faster became more desirable and evolved into horse. In that process the genetic code moved significantly far away from that of the original that whilst they can mate their offspring are infertile.

Anyway that is an explanation based on nothing more than a basic understanding of evolution, but that makes sense to me, extrapolate it out over billions of years and countless generations I can see how things can evolve the complexities and wonders we see in the modern world.

As for birds and wings surely they evolved from fish fins or from other aquatic mammals that used them to propel them through the water, you get flying fish, not a great leap to imagine that that is where they came from.

[Zingari]

cheers Capt.

I'm still going to hang on to my childlike "wonderful mystery of life" explanation .

it's much better than all that religious and scientific stuff

[BoneDog]

Oh - and the second link: **** off. The Discovery Institute is a "christian science" organisation which lies through it's teeth manipulating things in science to try and fit it to their preconceived world view. No-one with even a shred of scientific honesty in their body would give them the time of day.

L0L at the scientific honesty remark.

I challenged you to look at the science on those links and counter it. You failed. "Darwins theory is in a rut of unfalsifiability (fact). Children who are taught to uncritically accept such vaporous assertions are being seriously misled."

If the Discovery piece is such a joke, go and read it and come back and tell me why. Should be easy, right?

Fun fact of the day : Shared functional dna could indicate common design, and not common descent. Workable blueprints and all that. Happens all the time in the real world.

[The Doctor]

L0L at the scientific honesty remark.

I challenged you to look at the science on those links and counter it. You failed. "Darwins theory is in a rut of unfalsifiability (fact). Children who are taught to uncritically accept such vaporous assertions are being seriously misled."

If the Discovery piece is such a joke, go and read it and come back and tell me why. Should be easy, right?

Fun fact of the day : Shared functional dna could indicate common design, and not common descent. Workable blueprints and all that. Happens all the time in the real world.

ERV's are not functional, they're the remnants of previous viral infections: they serve no use to the organism. They are clear proof of common descent: the chances of the patterns we see occuring otherwise are so infinitesimally small that they aren't worth acknowledging (we're talking less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability). What you say there is rather similar to the brain dead droolings of YEC's "da devil dun put dem bons in da grond ta fool us".

Right - well, biggest point to make there is that it was written by someone with all the intelligence of a dead rat. Speciation is not major biological change, it's the production of new species - two species can be incredibly similar but if they can't interbreed then they are separate species. Once you start looking at a correct definition of speciation (the clue is in the ****ing name) then pretty much every single one of their complaints is left high and dry.

[Finnegan]

Hark at him!

The only reason I started this thread in the first place was because you were speaking in other threads as if you had the answers to the origin of life. You were repeating the no God line in a number of threads, and mentioning Dawkins.

If you and Dawkins et al kept philosophy and religion out of your supposed 'science' talks and books, then you telling me that 'evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life' might be a valid point. But you/they don't, so it isn't. Dawkins seems to harp on about religion and theology more than he does science.

So, because Dawkins belives in the theory of evolution and also believes there is no God, then the theory of evolution must state that there is no God?

Err...

[Raw Dykes]

[BoneDog]

So, because Dawkins belives in the theory of evolution and also believes there is no God, then the theory of evolution must state that there is no God?

Err...

Great contribution. You remind me lately of a shit, cupcake loving, internet patrolling teacher type. Always looking for something to stir or snitch on. What a wally.

*video*

The title of that video is very misleading. Every scientist, by a long shot, does not believe in Darwinian evolution. Some molecular biologists don't believe, and neither do scientists from all kinds of branches of science.

I've heard a rumour that a new biology is starting to see the light. Information theory it is called I think. Some scientists believe that the information/code etc. is not unguided, which obviously makes them total opposites to followers of Darwins theory.

[Finnegan]

Great contribution. You remind me lately of a shit, cupcake loving, internet patrolling teacher type. Always looking for something to stir or snitch on. What a wally.

Why, because I'm right? Break down all the Empty banter and the amusing turn of phrase and that's all that you're implying.

I concede I'm tired of arguing on the internet, I don't have the interest in reaming off paragraphs of debate and reasoned argument so I do apologize if I descend on occasion to snide one-line digs but I'd like you to explain how I'm actually wrong if you're going to be boldly offensive.

I'm not Large Al's biggest fan, I've no cause to jump to his side and I wouldn't defend him blindly but he's a smart lad who clearly knows what he's talking about. You've little by way of retort so you're just opting to drag Dawkins and his name in to this because he's a contentious individual whom you can achieve a bit of point scoring by putting down.

For the record, I actually agree with you to an extent on the origins of matter. I don't see an explanation within our current understanding of physics that explains how the first particles came from nothing. This does leave open a huge possibility for "creation" by an entity beyond our capacity to perceive but that doesn't mean that evolution of living beings on this planet can't be evidenced hugely substantially by people who've spent their whole lives dedicated to the research.

[Raw Dykes]

The title of that video is very misleading. Every scientist, by a long shot, does not believe in Darwinian evolution. Some molecular biologists don't believe, and neither do scientists from all kinds of branches of science.

I've heard a rumour that a new biology is starting to see the light. Information theory it is called I think. Some scientists believe that the information/code etc. is not unguided, which obviously makes them total opposites to followers of Darwins theory.

Slightly misleading, maybe. Very? Certainly not. Don't you think it's a bit funny that the vast majority of scientists do accept the theory of evolution to be true? These are the people who dedicate their lives to learning about reality. I'm fairly sure most of them are a whole lot more intelligent than you or me. You won't get far in science if you go into it with preconceived ideas that you're not willing to question.

That information theory just sounds like evolution with god tacked on, which I suppose is possible, but totally redundant, as it is unfalsifiable. Anyone who accepts evolution, but believes it is guided by an invisible agent, is completely missing the point of the theory. Evolution explains how every species of flora and fauna that ever lived on the planet came from single cell organisms naturally. There's no need for a god. I could say my left shoe could have guided it, but that wouldn't add anything to the theory, and there's no good reason to believe the shoe had anything to do with it, so for brevity's sake, we can just leave the shoe, or god, or pixies or whatever, out of it.

[BoneDog]

You've little by way of retort so you're just opting to drag Dawkins and his name in to this because he's a contentious individual whom you can achieve a bit of point scoring by putting down.

That whole sentence is so far off the mark, but never mind. Apologies if my mentioning Dawkins irks btw.

I've hardly mentioned Dawkins though in the grand scheme of things. Al, and Hawkins often used to talk as if Darwinian evolution theory has all but answered the God question. I've been trying to point out that it hasn't, because it hasn't, and likely never will.

I've posted many questions and have asked people to counter the scientific arguments against Darwinian evolution, but nobody has even looked at the links by the sounds of it.

For the record, I actually agree with you to an extent on the origins of matter. I don't see an explanation within our current understanding of physics that explains how the first particles came from nothing. This does leave open a huge possibility for "creation" by an entity beyond our capacity to perceive but that doesn't mean that evolution of living beings on this planet can't be evidenced hugely substantially by people who've spent their whole lives dedicated to the research.

The people I link to or mention in this thread have also spent their whole lives dedicated to scientific research.

Slightly misleading, maybe. Very? Certainly not. Don't you think it's a bit funny that the vast majority of scientists do accept the theory of evolution to be true?

No, I don't find it strange. Many of them haven't even looked at any contrary evidence yet. Many scientists don't even have anything to do with the theory in their work. Many of them, from what I've read, have differing thoughts on the matter but keep quiet in the halls of Academia because of the throwbacks if anyone dares mention an opposing view to neo-Darwinism. I've been meaning to get to that, even though I've shown snippets in the thread.

'Molecular biologists don't "understand" because they know too much'

http://www.evolution...defe063751.html

This link explains some of the intimidation tactics used against people who want to look after their positions.

'Background checks for doubts against Darwin'

http://www.evolution...chec059601.html

'This is, once again, how Darwinists maintain the fiction that the scientific community has reached a freely determined "consensus" in favor of Darwinian evolution and against competing scientific views like intelligent design. The consensus is maintained by intimidation. It's a farce - but for vulnerable people in academic life, a scary farce.'

http://www.evolution...g_da059401.html

Ben Carson's speech did go ahead at the University, and was inspirational. I watched it on Youtube. The students loved it.

These are the people who dedicate their lives to learning about reality. I'm fairly sure most of them are a whole lot more intelligent than you or me. You won't get far in science if you go into it with preconceived ideas that you're not willing to question.

The ID scientists don't have preconceived ideas. They use abductive reasoning.

That information theory just sounds like evolution with god tacked on, which I suppose is possible, but totally redundant, as it is unfalsifiable. Anyone who accepts evolution, but believes it is guided by an invisible agent, is completely missing the point of the theory. Evolution explains how every species of flora and fauna that ever lived on the planet came from single cell organisms naturally. There's no need for a god. I could say my left shoe could have guided it, but that wouldn't add anything to the theory, and there's no good reason to believe the shoe had anything to do with it, so for brevity's sake, we can just leave the shoe, or god, or pixies or whatever, out of it.

ID does leave God out of it and doesn't seek to explain anything to do with the 'agent' or 'source'. I've heard the accusations and seen the literature passed around in neo-Darwinist circles so understand why you might think otherwise.

Darwinist theory has much unfalsifiable 'evidence'.

[Raw Dykes]

Intelligent design is not science. It is just another name for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

ID is The Discovery Institute's lame attempt to get its foot in the door.

I think you need to investigate your sources. These people are not interested in the truth. They just want to teach kids the same load of bollocks they were taught.

http://occamsrazormag.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/why-the-religious-should-reject-intelligent-design/comment-page-1/

Again, regarding your wild conspiracy idea. Why? And how?

Why would anyone want to pretend this old theory was correct when it isn't? Who gains from it?

If anyone could disprove evolution, we would know about it. It would be front page news. There is no way a story that big could be kept under wraps. You are free to learn about evolution. If you, or anyone, can disprove it, then why don't you/they?

"Darwinist theory has much unfalsifiable 'evidence'." Name one unfalsifiable aspect of evolution.

[BoneDog]

I think the so called scientists on this site are not living up to their names. Not one of you has even mentioned why the science on the Discovery link about Millers assertions is wrong. Is the saying true that Darwinists ignore all contradictory evidence?

I've posted links, and there are many more, that show that some very good scientists are abandoning Darwinism. More will follow as time and science move forward. And there are links that show that any scientific oppostion to Darwinism is not tolerated.

After I came back to this thread I was hoping for a debate on some of the science links I posted, but it's not going to happen is it.

[BoneDog]

"Darwinist theory has much unfalsifiable 'evidence'." Name one unfalsifiable aspect of evolution.

Good question, I'll try and answer that soon.

I do think that Darwinists are hoping that the main theme of Darwinism is unfalsifiable - that being the argument that the whole process is unguided. I'm sure that science may soon be able to prove that the process cannot be unguided.

[Raw Dykes]

I think the so called scientists on this site are not living up to their names. Not one of you has even mentioned why the science on the Discovery link about Millers assertions is wrong. Is the saying true that Darwinists ignore all contradictory evidence?

I've posted links, and there are many more, that show that some very good scientists are abandoning Darwinism. More will follow as time and science move forward. And there are links that show that any scientific oppostion to Darwinism is not tolerated.

After I came back to this thread I was hoping for a debate on some of the science links I posted, but it's not going to happen is it.

I can see why you might be frustrated that no-one has responded to the links you've posted. I will try to when I get time, but I get the feeling that it will all be the same things creationists are always claiming. They never seem to have any new arguments, and there's a good reason why - they don't and can't actually do any work to further creationism's cause. They spend all their time just trying to find faults in evolution, as if that would prove creationism is true.

Good question, I'll try and answer that soon.

I do think that Darwinists are hoping that the main theme of Darwinism is unfalsifiable - that being the argument that the whole process is unguided. I'm sure that science may soon be able to prove that the process cannot be unguided.

Whether the process is guided by the supernatural or not cannot be proven one way or the other. Science cannot have anything to say about the supernatural. Anything that leaves no evidence behind cannot be measured, tested, observed, etc. and therefore is outside the grasp of science. Sure, it's possible that god exists and is guiding something that doesn't need guiding, but then it's also possible that pixies, werewolves or a celestial teapot is doing it. Even if there is a sentient being guiding it, it doesn't need guiding.

What we see happening to reproducing life forms over vast periods of time, maybe guided, maybe unguided, would also be happening without being helped along by an external agent. Believing in guided evolution is like believing in guided gravity. Maybe there are tiny invisible, silent goblins pushing and pulling anything that falls towards the Earth or other planets. It's possible, but I'd say it was very unlikely, and a total waste of time thinking about.

As I stated before, the whole point of the theory of evolution is that it explains how all the species of life on Earth naturally came about from one shared ancestor. Naturally being the operative word here.

[The Doctor]

Good question, I'll try and answer that soon.

I do think that Darwinists are hoping that the main theme of Darwinism is unfalsifiable - that being the argument that the whole process is unguided. I'm sure that science may soon be able to prove that the process cannot be unguided.

I've 3 exams in the next two weeks so can't afford to spend too much time arguing with people, but the argument isn't that it's unguided. It is guided - by natural selection. It's guided by the basic premise that the best adapted to the climate have a better chance of getting laid than those who can't survive.

[BoneDog]

Fair-do's you two, and good luck with those exams.

I'm not having a pop at science as a whole with all this by the way. It's all the Atheist v Christian stuff that some of the famous people bring into it that gets me (it's irrelevant in science imo), and that is what mainly caused me to start the thread (along with not believing human from apes thing). I think the Atheist v Christian stuff is irrelevant because, even if it was one day proven that there was an outside agent/source directing the information in the cell and dna or whatnot, then we would still be left with the arguments of what/who the agent is, and the Atheist v Christian/all the rest would continue. It's a totally different subject to science really, and nobody can be proven right imo.

Regarding natural selection, and 'guidance' or an 'agent', I've got a couple of links to post that suggest that many scientists doubt the ability of natural selection to actually do what Darwinism claims it must have done/is doing. I'll hopefully post later but have to read through all the articles again to find the ones I need. There's also a debate going on that suggests the 'tree of life' is all wrong, involving some recent data from lncRNA's (I found out a little about those this week but it is complicated)

Regarding Creationism, I'm pretty sure that laws in the US prevent anything being taught in public schools science lessons that brings Creationism into science. ID theory scientists are not all religious people.

Here's a couple of links on the 'tree of life' debate that's popped up:

This link is about a new article in Nature magazine and microRNA's.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/nature_article061471.html

This one's about another piece in Nature magazine that was reported on in the NY Times

'New York Times: "We are Sarcopterygian Fish," if you ignore contrary data'

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/new_york_times_1071571.html

It all seems like a scientific 'hot topic' to me.