Skepticism and Evolution

[truethat]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims. I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here.

 

[godless dave]

Examples?

 

[Dymanic]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in Plate Tectonics, and I don't believe this can ever explain the origin of the Earth.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims.

There, you said it. Feel better?

 

[paximperium]

truethat, examples of these claims or are you purposefully posting this to get an overreaction?

 

[rwp]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims. I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here.

I got here by walking. That's how I usually get here.

 

[drkitten]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims. I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here.

I'm not sure if you're trolling here to get an overreaction after getting your ideas denounced in the Religion forum, or if you're finally coming clean as a closet creationist as you were accused of being in that same forum.

Either way, colour me unimpressed.

 

[Ashles]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in Plate Tectonics, and I don't believe this can ever explain the origin of the Earth.

You still aren't saying anything very meaningful.

What do you mean by origin of the earth? The planet itself? The earth's biology?
Are you talking about evolution? Abiogenesis?

Please try and explain what you are saying.

Let's start here: What specific claim are you sceptical about?

 

[Wowbagger]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims.

Examples would be nice. Keep in mind, of course, that the "claims" were derived from testing hypotheses. (unless you found an exception?) And, that they are subject to change, as new, more precise, test results are generated.

Science builds provisional models, not ultimate truths.

If you have some alternative to the claims you are skeptical of, that can be backed by experimental evidence (even if only in principal, by proposing a new test), please provide it.

I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here.

I agree. But, we can do the next best thing: Build plausible models, based on independantly verifiable evidence, and testable hypotheses, etc.

And, even if these ideas are not perfect, they are still more useful in understanding our origins than anything else we've developed, so far.
...Even to the point where it helps us save lives in the field of medical research!

I'm not sure if you're trolling here to get an overreaction after getting your ideas denounced in the Religion forum, or if you're finally coming clean as a closet creationist as you were accused of being in that same forum.

Hey, now. Let's be patient! Maybe his examples will truly "WOW!" us, once he provides them.

 

[JJM]

I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field ... I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.

One may question the theory of evolution; but, at this time, the evidence for it is overwhelming.

Note that Darwin's book is titled "On the Origin of Species" not "On the Origin of Life." The theory of evolution does not address "how we got here" as in the origin of life, if that is what you meant.

If you meant by "how we got here" "how humans evolved from simpler life?" The evidence that we did is also abundant and overwhelming. If you think you have literature that seriously undermines that, you are giving too much credence to creationist literature. You can find most of their claims (they manufacture new ones daily) debunked at www.talkorigins.org especially if you append the /indexcc suffix to the URL.

If you want to cite information to support your position, please check readily available scientific literature (and talkorigins) before you post. It is impolite to ask us to do your research for you.

As for doubting we will ever know anything, perhaps there is someone more clever than you who will solve the problem. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality.

 

[drkitten]

Hey, now. Let's be patient! Maybe his examples will truly "WOW!" us, once he provides them.

Perhaps. Perhaps this evening I'll get a call from Barack Obama asking me to be his National Science Advisor come January. But I'm not especially sanguine about either prospect.

 

[NoisyAstronomer]

"...how we got here..."

Our most plausible models, shamelessly stealing Wowbagger's words, involve Big Bang, star formation, galaxy evolution, planet formation, chemical evolution, natural selection, genetic mutations, and so on. Some topics are more thoroughly understood than others. Evolution, in one form or another, goes way back to the beginning of the universe. I assume you're talking about the evolution of species and natural selection part as the problem.

So what are you skeptical about?

 

[plumjam]

I'm not sure if you're trolling here to get an overreaction after getting your ideas denounced in the Religion forum, or if you're finally coming clean as a closet creationist as you were accused of being in that same forum.

Either way, colour me unimpressed.

On balance, I disagree that his ideas were "denounced" in the R&P. I agreed with a lot of what he said, and I think he made his case pretty well. Others, like Roborama, complimented him. Joobz thanked him for his refreshing approach.
Your insinuation that he's a closet creationist just adds weight to the points he (and I) made over there regarding the paranoia that seems to take hold of evolutionists as soon as anyone of any stripe employs critical thinking in a way that raises questions pertaining to their pet theory.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'm calling it. 4:19 PM Central time; this thread's heart's chance of getting a response from truethat has officially stopped beating.

ETA: Drat! 4:20. Curse thee vile seconds!

 

[joobz]

I'm not sure if you're trolling here to get an overreaction after getting your ideas denounced in the Religion forum,...

I can't help but think he's attempting to illict a response to "prove" a point in his religion thread.

In any case, without any further information, Saying "i'm skeptical of evolution." is like saying "I'm skeptical of dave."

really? dave who?
What did dave do?
Is Dave here?

 

[Third Eye Open]

On balance, I disagree that his ideas were "denounced" in the R&P. I agreed with a lot of what he said, and I think he made his case pretty well. Others, like Roborama, complimented him. Joobz thanked him for his refreshing approach.
Your insinuation that he's a closet creationist just adds weight to the points he (and I) made over there regarding the paranoia that seems to take hold of evolutionists as soon as anyone of any stripe employs critical thinking in a way that raises questions pertaining to their pet theory.

Lol, pet theory.
I'm, sure if I had a degree in physics, I would get irritated when people with only a layman's knowledge in the area criticized my 'pet theory' of gravity for purely philosophical reasons.

 

[plumjam]

Lol, pet theory.
I'm, sure if I had a degree in physics, I would get irritated when people with only a layman's knowledge in the area criticized the theory of gravity for purely philosophical reasons.

The important difference is that we observe the action of gravity every day. We never observe the action of evolution (apart from variations within limits).

 

[Third Eye Open]

arg! I never edit my posts, and the one time I do it you catch me in the act, damn you PJ!

Evolution has been observed plenty, you know this, and you choose to ignore it.

 

[plumjam]

arg! I never edit my posts, and the one time I do it you catch me in the act, damn you PJ!

Evolution has been observed plenty, you know this, and you choose to ignore it.

Really? Apart from variations within limits where and when has evolution been observed?

 

[joobz]

On balance, I disagree that his ideas were "denounced" in the R&P. I agreed with a lot of what he said, and I think he made his case pretty well. Others, like Roborama, complimented him. Joobz thanked him for his refreshing approach.

Yes, I did think it was a refreshing approach. However, I also demontrated clearly that it was an argument based upon the human's inate pattern recognition ability, which is easily fooled.

His later argument in the thread(his point on science education being needless) was completely discredited.

Your insinuation that he's a closet creationist just adds weight to the points he (and I) made over there regarding the paranoia that seems to take hold of evolutionists as soon as anyone of any stripe employs critical thinking in a way that raises questions pertaining to their pet theory.

I disagree.