Could this be Evidence of Evolution in Action?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Has anyone brought up any of this nonsense in this thread? Or is this just a cheap stunt to pretend you have the high ground?

Are you claiming a higher caliber of nonsense has been wielded against evolution in this thread?

Being correct with the evidence and scientific community backing my position is the high ground, no pretence is required. If you want to reverse that situation present some evidence (a lot of very compelling evidence) or switch sides.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Has anyone brought up any of this nonsense in this thread? Or is this just a cheap stunt to pretend you have the high ground?

Are you claiming a higher caliber of nonsense has been wielded against evolution in this thread?

Nope.

Quote

Being correct with the evidence and scientific community backing my position is the high ground, no pretence is required.

Then why the need to resort to low brow retorts?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Has anyone brought up any of this nonsense in this thread? Or is this just a cheap stunt to pretend you have the high ground?

Are you claiming a higher caliber of nonsense has been wielded against evolution in this thread?

Nope.

Quote

Being correct with the evidence and scientific community backing my position is the high ground, no pretence is required.

Then why the need to resort to low brow retorts?

Is that your idea of evidence? You'll need to do better.

Ignoring the pot calling the kettle black for a moment, I'm free to use whatever retorts I choose. I've seen a litany of abuse directed towards science and scientists from people with nothing but a 1500 year-old patchwork of borrowed myths. It's not that there are two positions to be debated here, it's an objection to reason using an absolutely infantile prehistoric objection to science, and it goes beyond evolution for the young Earthers.

How dare anyone pretend they have a case against such an enormous body of scientific literature in multiple fields backed only by misrepresentations and an old book that predates science and is in fact largely allegorical if you understand the Jewish tradition. Hearing such impoverished people impugn a genius like Darwin, is deeply offensive.

Having someone present a complete distortion in ignorance of the facts claiming that the fossil record is flimsy (just one of many branches of corroborating and predicted scientific evidence) is an affront to reason.

Don't invite ridicule then object when the mildest hint of it is duly served.

[NCclimber 0]

Well, at least your open to honestly discussing the matter and not inclined to prejudge anyone with a differing perspective.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Well, at least your open to honestly discussing the matter and not inclined to prejudge anyone with a differing perspective.

I judge the issue based on the evidence & let the chips fall where they may.

You should dive for cover behing Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria instead of denying the science. The science debate is beyond recovery for you now, people who deny the science and in particularly those who believe in a young Earth are profoundly ignorant of the science, and in many cases willfully ignorant. That is not pejorative it is just the fact of the matter.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

My jaw has officially dropped.

Try reading an actual biology book. Any biology book.

Or visiting the fossil archives of any sizeable educational institution. Someplace other than the Discovery Institute.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Well if the mountains of fossil evidence does not persuade you and you lack the imagination to extrapolate or understand this event then wait a million years or so and get back to us.

Micro & macro meh, what tosh.

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

You must have hands the size of mountains!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

It's no suprise that life forms adapt to their environment....but proof of evolution would be a buterfly turning into a hippopotamus.

That would be a miraculous occurence of the religious type, and I'm assuming you are being facetious.

Animals do not evolve into each other, but they do have a common ancestor.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

>Just making a distinction between microevolution (which I
>wholeheartedly accept) and macroevolution (which I'm not as certain
>about).

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. If we can 'evolve' a wolf into a chihuahua in 6000 years, it stands to reason that you can do a lot more in 3 billion. Compare a chihuahua to a wolf, then consider what an animal that shows 500,000 times that difference would look like.

[pirana 0]

Quote

There are tens of thousands of fossils catalogued in the record. It beggars belief that you'd call this a handful. There's an entire chronology of very consistent fossil evidence using multiple dating methods (that all agree) that correlates perfectly with evolution and major finds all the time that fit with the theory. You have to be completely ignorant of what's actually going on in science to assert that there's a handful of questionable findings. Perhaps you get your science news based on whatever the 700 club highlights for the purposes of objection, but there are better sources.

In all the museums and universities and other various archives of the world, the number is probably in the millions; maybe tens of millions.

But yes, those fixated with dogmatic beliefs reject anything that does not fit. Where science is self-correcting (Piltdown and heliocentrism being perfect examples of stuff that doesn't fit getting corrected by new evidence), dogmatic belief systems just dig themselves further in whenever their faith-based neliefs are contradicted by something like facts.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, at least your open to honestly discussing the matter and not inclined to prejudge anyone with a differing perspective.

I judge the issue based on the evidence & let the chips fall where they may.

You should dive for cover behing Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria instead of denying the science. The science debate is beyond recovery for you now, people who deny the science and in particularly those who believe in a young Earth are profoundly ignorant of the science, and in many cases willfully ignorant. That is not pejorative it is just the fact of the matter.

You seem to have a lot of emotional equity invested in this matter.

I'll just move along now.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Natural selection (by itself) only selects against characteristics not suitable for a particular environment. As time goes on, diversification occurs and there is less information in the gene pool for natural selection to select against. It doesn’t add anything new to the equation. It only takes away from it. It actually makes that organism less capable of future adaptation to differing environments. It is working in the direction of extinction rather than in the direction of progression to a higher life form.

Like the man said, wrong.

You are focusing on traits selcected against. There are also traits selected for. Both are happening all the time, at the same time (from the perspective of long stretches of time). Selection as a whole does not reduce diversity.

You also make the statement that as time goes on, diversification occurs. Sounds like you are arguing against your own logic there.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

I have had a look at some of the links Paj posts - the funniest is the way of the master radio that thinks it can discredit evolution in three minutes. the first few seconds smacks of such a gross (possibly intentional) misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution it would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragically dumb.
Its almost as funny as the peanut butter and banana arguments.

The most tragic part is that there are people in high places *cough Bush cough* who incredibly say things like "Evolution - the jury is still out on that one isn't it?" Or maybe worse is that there are school boards still trying to force this stuff into the science curiculum. Now those folks should not be allowed to breed.

As someone else pointed out, the level of arguement about it and the resistance to getting educated on the topic is a USA phenomenon. It is mostly a testament to the PR skills of the radical fundamentalists and their desire to prey on the ignorant masses. They throw out stuff like The Research Project at The Discovery Institute and people just eat it up. That place has never conducted a shred of scientific research.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,990]

>but proof of evolution would be a buterfly turning into a hippopotamus.

Butterflies don't one day turn into hippopotamuses, and evolutionary theory does not state they do.

But the hippopotamus is a good example. Something like a rhino finds water and evolves into something like a hippopotamus, with its nostrils on top and its rear legs somewhat smaller (not much need for them in water.) That hippopotamus-like animal spends more and more time in the water, and is thus protected from land predators. That's an advantage. So it starts to lose its rear legs (no need for them in the water) and moves its nostrils even more. Eventually it becomes something like a big seal, with its rear legs no longer useful for walking; they're starting to look like flippers though. It can still (painfully) move on land, but it spends 90% of its time in the ocean.

Fast forward and it's starting to look like a manatee, with its pelvis almost gone, its front feet turned almost all the way into flippers (although they still have nails) and its metabolism adapted to constant submersion.

Give it another hundred million years and you start to see further adaptations. You get better streamlining, better swimming muscles, altered metabolism for longer dives etc etc - and you have something that looks an awful lot like a modern whale.

A rhino-like ancestor did not, one day, magically turn into a whale - but through a long series of tiny changes, a long ago ancestor gradually shed its legs and adapted to an aquatic environment.

Indeed, all the above steps have been observed in the fossil record - and hippos and whales share the same common ancestor per genetic testing.

[pirana 0]

Quote

To have non-scientists debate science with scientists is a joke. I don't know what's funnier, that they disavow evolution with the most simplistic rubbish as if each point is a real zinger or that they actually think there's a role for them in a genuine scientific debate.

"Evolution is just a theory."

A very good book with that title (Just A Theory).

A great read for all those that think all theories, or all ideas, are equally valid.

Scientists do not ususally like to debate the psuedo-science crackpots. It's a tough job. The psuedos bring sensationalism, a pitchman's excitement, and an aura of entertainment. The scientist brings facts in the form of evidence and information. I think the science is amazing and opens up a world of awe and discovery. Unfortunately, the masses have been primed to prefer the pitchman's entertainment.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Then why the need to resort to low brow retorts?

You seem to be labouring under the mistaken view that there is actually a serious debate to be had here - there isn't.

There is absolutely nothing that the creationism/ID/anti-evolution side can present that is based on anything more than a tortured parody of the scientific method. If you don't believe me go read the scathing judgement from the Dover trial, and remember, it was the very cream (or perhaps something else that floats to the top) of the anti-evolution movement that the Judge had heard from before presenting his ruling.

With the kind of arguments that the anti science crowd present here there is no 'need' to resort to ridicule, it is simply the most fitting path to take.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

You seem to have a lot of emotional equity invested in this matter.

I'll just move along now.

I see it as strong words, but not emotional. The statements, as well as the facts behind them, are highly logical - not emotional. That is one of the points alluded to in the thread. There is no room for emotion in the interpretation of evidence (ideally). When it does occur, or when science gets things wrong for any reason, it is exposed and corrected for upon discovery of new information or by repeating the experiments and observations. (Repeatability is big in science).

Beleif systems based on emotions and desires, rather than objectivity and observation, may be very spiritually uplifting; but they are doomed to become bankrupt in their accuracy. The big happy solution (and the way to avoid such foolish arguements) is to keep the two separate. Stop trying to explain the natural world via ancient dogmatic belief systems.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Well, at least your open to honestly discussing the matter and not inclined to prejudge anyone with a differing perspective.

You're.

Anyway, "anyone with a different perspective"? This isn't moral philosophy here, two differing views cannot be equally correct.

In this arena the two perspectives are as follows: a) the most important scientific theory of our times, backed up with unparalleled mountains of evidence and research, and b) wealthy religious con-men and their gullible followers.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pirana 0]

Quote

If you don't believe me go read the scathing judgement from the Dover trial, and remember, it was the very cream (or perhaps something else that floats to the top) of the anti-evolution movement that the Judge had heard from before presenting his ruling.

That was something. It was almost as good to see their flimsy bullshit blown completely out of the water as it was to see them exposed and caught outright lying about what they were doing and why.

They denied under oath that ID had anything to do with wanting to teach creationism. Then the prosecution offers a copy of an early draft of their "text" in which they literally went thru it and crossed out all the occurences of creationism and replaced it with intelligent design. They must have forgot that was floating around. (I could imagine the lawyer leaning over and whispering to the defendant "I thought you said those were all destroyed?")

Funny thing is, they went immediately into their usual form of denial. Come to think of it, they resemble a conspiracy more than anything else.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Then the prosecution offers a copy of an early draft of their "text" in which they literally went thru it and crossed out all the occurences of creationism and replaced it with intelligent design.

Yeah, that was "Pandas and people" or something, wasn't it?

And of course there was a trial back in the 80's I think where one of the expert witnesses for ID told the judge that UFO's were sent by God as harbingers of Armaggedon

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Just making a distinction between microevolution (which I
>wholeheartedly accept) and macroevolution (which I'm not as certain
>about).

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. If we can 'evolve' a wolf into a chihuahua in 6000 years, it stands to reason that you can do a lot more in 3 billion. Compare a chihuahua to a wolf, then consider what an animal that shows 500,000 times that difference would look like.

Is this even possible in the near future with Global Warming and all?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

For those who may be confused the report was originally published in the Sience magazine and relates to work conducted at University College London.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Sorry my stating that I'm not completely convinced about the process of macroevolution caused such a stink.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

>Just making a distinction between microevolution (which I
>wholeheartedly accept) and macroevolution (which I'm not as certain
>about).

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. If we can 'evolve' a wolf into a chihuahua in 6000 years, it stands to reason that you can do a lot more in 3 billion. Compare a chihuahua to a wolf, then consider what an animal that shows 500,000 times that difference would look like.

Is this even possible in the near future with Global Warming and all?

Not as long as we all have guns. Now the thread is complete.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Just making a distinction between microevolution (which I
>wholeheartedly accept) and macroevolution (which I'm not as certain
>about).

Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. If we can 'evolve' a wolf into a chihuahua in 6000 years, it stands to reason that you can do a lot more in 3 billion. Compare a chihuahua to a wolf, then consider what an animal that shows 500,000 times that difference would look like.

Is this even possible in the near future with Global Warming and all?

Not as long as we all have guns. Now the thread is complete.

The fossils were hidden in the ground by an evil conspiracy of secular humanists. who also caused the 9/11 attacks.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Quote

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm

For those who may be confused the report was originally published in the Sience magazine and relates to work conducted at University College London.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Sorry my stating that I'm not completely convinced about the process of macroevolution caused such a stink.

What is it that makes you unconvinced about evolution?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?