Evolution: the Facts.

[John Jones]

Are you a creationist?

 

[JonathanQuick]

Nope, I haven't done so, nor shall I, I shall ask instead the standard questions, I am not seeking consensus, I am asking for discussion.

Bravo. One of you in a house of, how many? Several hundred?

Please name for me members here who you deem to be scholarly and who do not embrace Darwinism with all their heart and soul.

1. What about antibiotic resistance, does that not demonstrate natural selection ?

Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.

Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.

2. Then there is the confusing issue of the fused chromosome, humans have one less chromosome pair than the other great apes and a chromosome pair that has telomeres in the middle and an extra centomere, as though it was made from the fusing of two chromosomes.
3. Then there are the strange traits like the peacock's tail.

So please let us talk about those three Mr. Quick shall we?
What alternative explanation do you offer , as that is what theories are approximate models. So I say that these three data points are possibly explained by the process of natural selection through reproductive success.

What say you.

What I say is, why did you fail to address my many questions?
What I say is, why did you permit your many friends to do what you claim not to have done?
You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.

 

[DallasDad]

DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption.

I wasn't curious about them. I was curious about you. The rest of the posters in this thread seem to be forthright about their opinions and positions. You're disagreeing with them, but not stating your own position.

So ... are you a creationist?

 

[pnerd]

Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.

Neither is macroevolution. Evidences for macroevolution
.

 

[Mahaha]

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.

Well, not to take sides, but he asked questions about evolution, the topic of this thread, while you are asking why a particulr fraud wasn't found to be true? Even if one answers that, how is it useful for debating evolution?

Plus, sticking to the failings of a man who lived more than 100 years ago isn't that useful. Darwin was wrong about some stuff too, I mean we are all human.

Let's stick to facts about evolution. Do you know what a selex is? Do you know how cancer proceeds? Do you know about the evolution of the pigments in scimian and human eyes?

These are reasonable questions, and I'm asking them politley (and I'm saying this explicitly so that my tone isn't misunderstood). If not with evolution, how do you explain such things?

 

[nvidiot]

Goddidit.

See? It's so easy to become a Phd in creation science!

 

[Dancing David]

Bravo. One of you in a house of, how many? Several hundred?

Please name for me members here who you deem to be scholarly and who do not embrace Darwinism with all their heart and soul.

derail, off the track.

Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.

Micro-evolution, such as that you cited, is not disputed.

And that is fine, so you do acknowledge that in principle traits can become dominant in a population through reproductive success.

What I say is, why did you fail to address my many questions?
What I say is, why did you permit your many friends to do what you claim not to have done?

I did address those you presented in the thread at the time I returned to it. I do not control others.

You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.

My stance on incivility is in my posts.

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.

I did. So your accusation is false. And as stated at the time, there is better evidence than Haekels drawings and theory, which was disputed at the time, and since. Science is not homogenous.

 

[Foster Zygote]

DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption. Not ONE.

Think about that for a few seconds.

I will answer in a day or two, but doesn't it appear quite obvious to you that
I have NEVER claimed to be a "creationist"?

Nor have I made any claims about the Bible trumping science.
Darwinists consistently jump to baseless conclusions which are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, and then - THEN they have the temerity, the galling arrogance to claim that THEY are paragons of science, and the object(s) of their enmity are ignorant hillbillies.

Are you a politician?

 

[Dinwar]

Theodosius Dobzhansky coined the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" as everyone here SHOULD know, but unfortunately does not.

As I said, the fact that few if any researchers who study evolution use those terms is telling. It's predominantly Creationists that use the terms micro- and macro-evolution. (One exception I know of is the use of the term macroevolution to denote evolution above the species level, but I'm not a fan of that and it's fairly rare to hear it at any rate.)

Now, please address why it took Haeckel's fraud 129 years AFTER its expose, to wend its way through the scientific community, so that biology books as recent as 1997 continued to prattle this egregious lie?

You said nothing about this, so far.

Well, science screws up sometimes. We caught it. No one in science claims it's perfect, just that it's better than any alternatives we have.

You mean you don't have any problem with ad hominem attacks against dissenters? Or is it that you just don't want to get involved? Let the "discussions," such as they are, proceed without a semblance of balance or intellectual honesty.

The problem is that discussions about the validity of the theory of evolution cannot be both ballanced and intellectually honest. The evidence for the theory is overwhelming--it overwhelmed the objections to Darwin's work when it was new, it overwhelmed the objections to Soviet biology (by the way, the fact that evolution leads to better agriculture and better standards of living while rejection of evolution leads to mass starvation, as seen in the Soviet Union, is something Creationists tend to refuse to consider), and any intellectually honest examination of the evidence of any single field which deals with evolution necessarily leads to the conclusion that evolution is true. The only way to ballance this is to either refuse to admit valid evidence, or to admit blatant falsehoods as evidence (yes, yes, science screws up sometimes; but once we catch it we don't use false data anymore).

Either you're looking at the data objectively and honestly, or you're ballancing the discussion between support of evolution and opposition to it.

DallasDad, you have read post after post after post CALLING me a "creationist" and you did not think to ask ONE of those people the basis for such an assumption. Not ONE.

This is flat-out false. I gave my reasoning, yesterday at 5:17 pm California time. You may reject my reasoning, but it's a simple fact, available to anyone who simply looks at the previous page, that I have presented an argument for my assessment.

 

[JonathanQuick]

As I said, the fact that few if any researchers who study evolution use those terms is telling. It's predominantly Creationists that use the terms micro- and macro-evolution. (One exception I know of is the use of the term macroevolution to denote evolution above the species level, but I'm not a fan of that and it's fairly rare to hear it at any rate.)

The claim that such terms are the creation of "Creationists" is a lie. Science should not traffic in lies, but as I have shown repeatedly, it does.
It is shameful, but rather than acknowledge such events, people excuse such conduct. It is "telling" that you do so.

Well, science screws up sometimes. We caught it. No one in science claims it's perfect, just that it's better than any alternatives we have.

Nobody claims otherwise, EXCEPT Darwinists.
Among many other outrageous claims, and inexcusable lies, Darwinists have said that:

"if evolution goes, all of science goes."
"Creationists want to reject science"
"Young earth creationists..... _______ (fill in the blank)"

The list of hatefulness and pejorative remarks by your side would require days to list. That is NOT science, it is anti-science.
You should deride such conduct. When have you done so?

The problem is that discussions about the validity of the theory of evolution cannot be both ballanced (SIC) and intellectually honest.

1. Yes they can.
2. They are NEITHER.
I did not say that your side must present no more arguments than my side.
I did not make a fraction of the remarks that have been attributed to me, from being a "Creationist" to being a "YEC" to citing the Bible.

Let's leave the Bible out of this, shall we? Your friends can't seem to do so. When did an intellectually honest proponent of evolution call ANYONE on his side about such tactics? Please show me a few such interventions.

The evidence for the theory is overwhelming--it overwhelmed the objections to Darwin's work when it was new, it overwhelmed the objections to Soviet biology (by the way, the fact that (micro) evolution leads to better agriculture and better standards of living while rejection of (micro) evolution leads to mass starvation, as seen in the Soviet Union, is something Creationists tend to refuse to consider), and any intellectually honest examination of the evidence of any single field which deals with evolution necessarily leads to the conclusion that evolution is true.

Once again, you mesh and blend microevolution with macroevolution.
Do not argue the meanings of each term. They were CREATED by Theodosius Dobzhansky, an eminent evolutionist.
I agree. I believe it is extremely powerful. But consensus does not drive science. Dissent and questions do.
Peter Medawar said as much, and he was quite emphatic. Nobody here seems to give a rat's gluteus what Medawar said.

The only way to ballance (SIC) this is to either refuse to admit valid evidence, or to admit blatant falsehoods as evidence (yes, yes, science screws up sometimes; but once we catch it we don't use false data anymore).

Not exactly. Haeckel was "caught" in 1868. Yet the falsehoods persisted until 1997. Blatant falsehoods.

Now let me give you some thoughts on BALANCE and INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

1. One person attempting to respond to 50 or 100 others is patently unfair and UNBALANCED. You refuse to recognize much less acknowledge this.
Nowhere is such a one-sided debate ever attempted.

2. Intellectual honesty would RECOGNIZE that someone making the salient points, and using the terms of art I have employed is NOT the ignoramus your many friends have attempted to portray me as.

But lacking both intellectual honesty and common decency, the imbalance and personal attacks continue.

Although your post is far superior to the average I see here, you still make egregious errors in forcing your own point, while dismissing and slighting my own.

I quite agree. Darwinism has much to commend it. But to dismiss my questions by posting a link, and claiming all my questions are "answered here" is not remotely adequate.

Fact: Despite claiming to know so very much about evolution, many of your associates were unfamiliar with Darwinism, as used by Richard Dawkins, Michael Ruse in his book by that title, and others whose reputation and credentials would never be questioned by anyone here who has so eagerly and arrogantly dismissed me.

Fact: Despite claiming to know so very much about evolution, many of your friends pretended, and claimed, that the terms microevolution and macroevolution were invented by "Creationists" when in fact they were the produce of Dobzhansky.

Fact: Haeckel's fraud persisted from 1868 to 1997, in stark contradiction to the mantra of "self-correcting" science.

Fact: Biochemical synthesis is not trivial, and yet it is endlessly trivialized because of its complexity, and the difficulty if not impossibility of addressing it through the mechanism of random mutation followed by selection.

Fact: Information theorists have published many papers describing the insuperable difficulty of accumulating useful information to produce a compact, coherent repository (DNA) complete with the means of interpreting it, reproducing it, all from hopeful hypotheticals. With all our sophistication, we cannot today begin to interpret the language of life, viz. what the various amino acid sequences mean. But somehow, somehow because bacteria can lose information and thereby gain resistance, this means that proteins and DNA all synthesized themselves by repeating this mechanism. In other words, microevolution means macroevolution.

It does not follow.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Speaking of Peter Medawar, Richard Dawkins said in an e-mail to me:

"I am reminded of a lovely quote by Peter Medawar."

(It is tragic that so many have gotten a university education but still cannot think.) paraphrased

I replied to Dawkins that Medawar's observation was not remotely "lovely."

It was tragic. It was unfortunate. It was a black mark against educators everywhere, and Dawkins is of course, an educator.

Dawkins didn't respond to my take on what HE thinks is "lovely".

"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.

 

[nvidiot]

Do you think name dropping will help your cause?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Goddidit.

See? It's so easy to become a Phd in creation science!

Let me try! Apparent grossly extended recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes - mysterious divine wisdom!

Apparent fusion in human chromosome two - mysterious divine wisdom!

Though that doesn't actually explain anything, does it?

 

[pnerd]

Many people keep repeating the incident of Haeckel's fraud. Is that even relevant to a discussion of evidences for (or against) the theory of evolution?

 

[subterranean1]

Speaking of Peter Medawar, Richard Dawkins said in an e-mail to me:

"I am reminded of a lovely quote by Peter Medawar."

(It is tragic that so many have gotten a university education but still cannot think.) paraphrased

I replied to Dawkins that Medawar's observation was not remotely "lovely."

A quote can be 'lovely' if it is making a true and pertinent observation, even if the observation is about something unfortunate.

Dawkins didn't respond to my take on what HE thinks is "lovely".

Why on earth should he, even if he actually read your email, rather than having someone junk it before it even got to him?
You seem to be giving a pretty good impression here of someone with a dislike of science. If you gave the same impression in your email, it's quite likely to have been filed under 'internut' and left at that.

"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.

"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria." - (actual quote) Richard Dawkins

Jonathan, if you don't actually understand what someone is saying, it's probably best not to call them ignorant, especially when they're actually very well qualified to talk about what they're talking about (and, judging from your performance here so far, you aren't).

If you actually had anything to say about scientific problems with evolution, I guess you wouldn't be trying to attack Dawkins by the futile method of ascribing malice to him where it clearly wasn't intended or manifestly misunderstanding what he says.

What you've written here says far more about you than it does about Dawkins.

 

[Paulhoff]

"An elephant consists of a trillion colonies of bacteria." (paraphrased) - Richard Dawkins

What ignorance that is.

The ignorance is yours.

There are more bacteria, by the count, but not the mass, in an elephant, human etc than there are cells of that animal. Bacteria are much smaller cells than the ones in your body. And most are in your gut, and you can find out why.

Paul

 

[JonathanQuick]

The ignorance is yours.

Paulhoff, you SHOULD be ashamed of yourself. Unfortunately you are not.

Nota bene: Not ONE of the exceedingly self-styled *intellectuals* here condemned your hateful, intolerant attack, calling me ignorant.
Not one.

There are more bacteria, by the count, but not the mass, in an elephant, human etc than there are cells of that animal. Bacteria are much smaller cells than the ones in your body. And most are in your gut, and you can find out why.

Paul

Dawkins made no reference to the gut. He stated that the elephant is COMPOSED, meaning its cells. You DO understand the difference between LIVING CELLS and excrement in the intestines, don't you?

It's really not that difficult.

You see, sir, a colony of bacteria INSIDE the BODY (not the intestine) is called an INFECTION.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nota bene: Not ONE of the exceedingly self-styled *intellectuals* here condemned your hateful, intolerant attack, calling me ignorant.
Not one.

How is it an attack to call you ignorant if people provide evidence of your ignorance regarding the subject being discussed? You do realize that "ignorant" is not intrinsically derogative, yes?


By the way, I'm still interested in learning the proper interpretation of Exodus 21.

 

[JonathanQuick]

A quote can be 'lovely' if it is making a true and pertinent observation, even if the observation is about something unfortunate.

"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - Milton Friedman

Lovely

"On average, education majors score lower on the SAT test than any other major." - Professor Walter Williams

Lovely, absolutely divine.

Why on earth should he, even if he actually read your email, rather than having someone junk it before it even got to him?
You seem to be giving a pretty good impression here of someone with a dislike of science.

I have a profound contempt for people who pretend to know a great deal more than they really do. You should pay more attention to what I say, and almost none to the hateful and intolerant pejoratives which follow my every comment. Take your own hateful pejorative below:

If you gave the same impression in your email, it's quite likely to have been filed under 'internut' and left at that.

So you dismiss ME as an "internut" who "dislike(s) science."

Time and again I have met such inane remarks as yours with the simplest of challenges, and time and again, the one so challenged skittles away like a cockroach.

So my challenge to you is this:

What well-known law in physics expresses a proportionality based on the fourth power of the respective variable?

(No help from outside.)

What is the space of hemoglobin?

Give some probabilistic value to the precision of the gravitational constant.

Jonathan, if you don't actually understand what someone is saying, it's probably best not to call them ignorant, especially when they're actually very well qualified to talk about what they're talking about (and, judging from your performance here so far, you aren't).

You traffic in generalities, and pejoratives. "Internut" is but one example.
Now you claim that I "don't actually understand what" others are saying, and that I "dislike science." Such distortions as yours, and theirs, are extremely irresponsible and dishonest.

///
What you've written here says far more about you than it does about Dawkins.

This shows how very little you know about the socialist.

He is a malicious atheist. Even a fellow biologist and atheist said of his recent book, "It makes me ashamed to be an atheist."

That Dawkins is celebrated, almost WORSHIPED by atheists speaks volumes.
There is even a hateful group so malicious and intolerant as to ridicule Christians everywhere by calling themselves worshipers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They replace the picture of God in Michelangelo's famous work of the Creation of Man with their spaghetti monster.

Are you a Christian? Do you know any? Any at all?

Is that the way you treat them?

 

[JonathanQuick]

How is it an attack to call you ignorant if people provide evidence of your ignorance regarding the subject being discussed? You do realize that "ignorant" is not intrinsically derogative, yes?


By the way, I'm still interested in learning the proper interpretation of Exodus 21.

The subject I originally introduced was polypeptides.

Tell me what you know about them from off the top of your head.

What is a polypeptide bond?

How many amino acids were discovered inside the Murchison Meteorite?

How many amino acids are there in the human body?

How many were synthesized in the Miller-Urey experiment, and in what concentrations?

Your failure to answer these questions will demonstrate your own ignorance, notwithstanding your arrogant claims to the contrary.