• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: the Facts.

jimbob said:
...The Devil facial tumor certainly evolved from the cells of a tasmanian devil, but has outlived many of its hosts. This is an example of a unicellular form of life evolving from a mammal fairly recently.
Click to expand...

An interesting article, jimbob. I wonder how IDers cope with this example, especially considering the strategies used to treat it.
...Six females have been found with a partial immunity. Breeding in captivity has begun to try to save the population
Click to expand...

Dinwar said:
And if we were unicellular we wouldn't be talking about apparent direction, because it would be trivially obvious that life had remained nearly exclusively unicellular, with only a few weird outliers.
Click to expand...
Yes, outliers.
 
randman said:
Maybe so but evos assert there was a direction and that was from unicellular life to ever novel forms of life and so greater complexity that we see today. That's their story. To dismiss that by saying, well, evolution has no direction is a little disingenuous.

It certainly had a direction, right? if you believe in common descent.
Click to expand...

Just as the branches of shrub have direction, I suppose the phrase 'contingent history' means nothing to you, that is the 'old evo' fable about the progression of life. As stated before you attack old theory and pretend it has meaning.

Determinism, progressivism, gradualism and adaptationism are all errors in evolutionary thinking. Read SJ Gould

You do know that bacteria have been evolving all along, while you are monomaniacal with you focus on the 'higher taxa'.
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
How is gradualism an error in evolutonary thinking? Even the punctuated parts of punctuated equilibrium develop gradually.
Click to expand...

He probably means phyletic gradualism where it's literally just a line of evolution (without proper time and selection context) kinda just that slow uniform evolution as opposed to current theories which involve PE. Remember, he said to read SJ Gould WoWbagger =P
 
Last edited:
Wowbagger said:
How is gradualism an error in evolutonary thinking? Even the punctuated parts of punctuated equilibrium develop gradually.
Click to expand...

It is a long running part of Gould's essays, gardualism does exist but it is not always that way. I believe it involves the often rapid changes in morphology.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

This YouTube series should be stickied on its own. The paleontologist who makes these videos refutes pretty much every one of the claims of Creationists, and our local kook randman. Throughout this series he demonstrates the errors, the frauds, and the outright lies of those who make these arguments. The creator exposes a breadth and depth of knowledge that's truly remarkable, and certainly well beyond anything anyone arguing against evolution has presented here.
 
I am always amazed at how nuclear science gets lumped into evolution in these arguments. The debate isn't between evolution and creationism, it is between creationism and all of reality. What branch of knowledge to creationists accept?
 
yog_sothoth said:
I am always amazed at how nuclear science gets lumped into evolution in these arguments. The debate isn't between evolution and creationism, it is between creationism and all of reality. What branch of knowledge to creationists accept?
Click to expand...

Anything that doesn't contradict their idea about reality.

I consciously said "idea" in stead of "ideas", because the only real idea they have about reality is "goddidit". Anything else is just rehashing of that original idea.
 
The real problem with radiometric dating, as far as Creationists go, is that it's more or less direct proof that their fairy tale is wrong. They HAVE to attack it--just as they have to atttack evolution, the speed of light, all of astronomy, all of geology, etc.--or accept defeat.

And that's the thing with irrationality: once you go against reason, you have to keep rejecting reason. The real world is interconnected, and any true fact can be derived via multiple independant lines of evidence. To embrace a fake fact is to reject all of those lines--which means rejecting all of the lines supporting those lines--which means rejecting all of the support for THOSE lines of evidence--until you simply have to give up reason entirely.
 
Dinwar said:
The real problem with radiometric dating, as far as Creationists go, is that it's more or less direct proof that their fairy tale is wrong. They HAVE to attack it--just as they have to atttack evolution, the speed of light, all of astronomy, all of geology, etc.--or accept defeat.

And that's the thing with irrationality: once you go against reason, you have to keep rejecting reason. The real world is interconnected, and any true fact can be derived via multiple independant lines of evidence. To embrace a fake fact is to reject all of those lines--which means rejecting all of the lines supporting those lines--which means rejecting all of the support for THOSE lines of evidence--until you simply have to give up reason entirely.
Click to expand...

Most seem not even to bother with rejecting any evidence, they simply pretend that there was no evidence in the first place. Much in the same way that an atheist doesn't reject God, because he doesn't think there is a God to reject (cue nitpickers on the subject of "God" and "the idea of a God"), but in an irrational way, because they have to look the other way in order not to see the evidence, whilst an atheist has to look very hard in order to try and find evidence for God.
 


Thanks for bringing up awareness of these vids. I thought this particular one was written especially for randman

BTW the narrator needs to take a second to breath, I can almost hear his anger though.
 
Last edited:
Bram Kaandorp said:
Most seem not even to bother with rejecting any evidence, they simply pretend that there was no evidence in the first place.
Click to expand...
I could have respect for people who took the line that evidence contrary to their beliefs was faked by one or more supernatural entities, since that is at least a self-consistent approach, and isn't denying the actual existence of the evidence.
However, pretending the evidence doesn't exist or pretending that one or other scientific method doesn't work isn't really pretending, it's basically deceit, and generally knowing deceit.

Pretending is when a child is living in a fantasy world, or when adults knowingly engage with fictions, but in ways that don't clash with other people or the real world..

When an adult makes real-world claims to other people about the truth or otherwise of some evidence or method of analysis, they have a meaningful responsibility to work out whether what they say is actually true or not.
That's part of what being a grown-up involves.

If the best someone could do to defend what they claim when they know the issue is a matter of fact rather than opinion is say "But [insert cleric of choice] says...', they're not doing any better than a small child could, and small children shouldn't be allowed influence over adult issues like education and politics.
 
I like the way the guy in the videos I posted puts it: If you can't show it, you DON'T know it. Considering all knowledge must be based on verifiable facts, anything that cannot be demonstrated is by definition wrong.
 
"Demonstrated", not proven. I can DEMONSTRATE gravity any time I wish--just pick up a book and let go. When it comes to sedimentary structures, I can demonstrate them in a flume, or in the field (one reason I hate beaches--I keep seeing the sedimentary processes and geomorphology). I certainly won't say either proves it--particularly not in this group--but it certainly is an effective demonstration.

Maybe I should have said "...anything that cannot be demonstrated is not known"?
 
Dinwar said:
"Demonstrated", not proven. I can DEMONSTRATE gravity any time I wish--just pick up a book and let go. When it comes to sedimentary structures, I can demonstrate them in a flume, or in the field (one reason I hate beaches--I keep seeing the sedimentary processes and geomorphology). I certainly won't say either proves it--particularly not in this group--but it certainly is an effective demonstration.

Maybe I should have said "...anything that cannot be demonstrated is not known"?
Click to expand...

When I ask religious people do demonstrate God, apparently it doesn't work that way. God has to work "through me" and I have to let Jesus enter my heart. Of course they've all done this and cannot demonstrate it...

But then it goes NOMA
 
randman said:
Ok, but evos say humans and all life forms evolved from a single-cell organism, right?

Why the apparent direction then?
Click to expand...

I see this was a good time for randman to make his exit...it's an EPIC fail.

Say an airplane malfunctions, and after furious attempts by the pilot to regain control cause it to take a wildly meandering course, it crashes into my house.

If it was out of control, then why the apparent direction?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom