Evolution a hoax?

[randman]

wowabgger, how do you explain people that once accepted evo theory and now don't. I believed in evolution and was challenged to look into the facts for myself. As I did, I could no longer accept evolution. The facts did not line up. For example, no matter how much one demonstrates microevolution, it is not evidence for macroevolution regardless of insistence it is by definition according to evos.

The fossil record certainly does not show any macroevolution. There are no examples of fossils showing a gradual morphing into something considerably different, nada. That's a fact whether evos want to admit it or not. You can say, well, it happened so fast through PE that no fossils were left but that doesn't change the fact it isn't shown. It's just an attempt to explain why it isn't shown.

We also don't see examples in living biota.

At some point, you gotta say, hey, this is a crock of bs. The evidence is not there.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I very much admire Wowbagger's knowledge, tenaciousness and endurance. Clearly, he has articulated and defended the theory of evolution extremely well (not just here -- but many times) -- and with integrity and honesty.
In contrast, when people like Randman resort to nitpicking such a massively supported theory like evolution, they do so dishonestly -- much the way a certain Mozina does so in the fields of physics and cosmology on other threads here.
The mistakes and frauds committed by individuals and gaps in our understanding have always been a part of all science. All sciences are, after all, human endeavors and suffer from human limitations. There is no evidence that the historical mistakes, false starts, misunderstandings and frauds in the field of biology (including evolution) are any more or less than those in other scientific endeavors. Such missteps have no bearing on the validity of the science in question and are being used here as a patently dishonest attempt to debase a genuine scientific theory.
In this discussion, while the debate about the nuances of evolution continue, the elephant in the room seems to escape scrutiny. Namely, that there is not one shred of evidence supporting the deities needed by Randman to support his unscientific notions. He is free to nitpick to his heart's delight with no honest admission that his own beliefs are based on the figment of one huge gaping chasm of deities, which do not have the slightest scientific basis. The contrast is striking!

 

[Wowbagger]

Certainly advances in microevolutionary research or variation as some creationists put it has been useful and if you think of macro-evolutionary theories as applying to the ecology in a macro-sense, that's useful but doesn't really need ToE. It's just useful to study the interdependence of various biota and the environment.

Ecology does not need the Theory of Evolution. But, ToE can be used to help devise ecological strategies.

I already outlined specifically where the ToE was invoked in some of my examples: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7350223&postcount=122

How come the Intelligent Designer can not be invoked?

But NeoDarwinism has been a hindrance to science, frankly.

NeoDarwinism outputs new knowledge, which can be the basis of new technologies. How is that a hindrance to science?

Wowbagger, you are going to need to breakdown what you mean by essentialism a little more for me.

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

The idea all of life is the same is more of a metaphysical claim.

It can be tested empirically. And has been.

Certainly, some evos apply their theory to such metaphysical oneness of all life but so do some religions in varying degrees.

As I point out: Essentialism can vary independently of religion.

That some religions are non-essentialist is nice, but not relevant to my point.

Science has also found empirical success in being non-essentialist, which is not easy for some humans to do.

We do describe characteristics of species, but evolutionists suggest that they share a common, original ancestor. So, those characteristics melt away, as we go back in time. A bunny rabbit, for example, is not different from a turtle, once you find the common ancestor they split from.

So, the concept of essentialism is thus violated by the theory.

 

[randman]

We do describe characteristics of species, but evolutionists suggest that they share a common, original ancestor. So, those characteristics melt away, as we go back in time. A bunny rabbit, for example, is not different from a turtle, once you find the common ancestor they split from.

This is just unscientific and muddled thinking. If you go back in time, there is no turtle or rabbit. Religious folks believe we all have a common source as well, namely God.

How is that any different?

The simple fact of the matter is regardless of belief in common descent, a turtle is still different than a human being, and each has a differing set of specific characteristics, and to claim otherwise is to ignore empirical evidence.

But maybe ignoring empirical evidence is indeed a major factor in whether one believes in evolution or not? Maybe the need to believe in a common source trumps everything else?

 

[cwalner]

The fossil record certainly does not show any macroevolution. There are no examples of fossils showing a gradual morphing into something considerably different, nada. That's a fact whether evos want to admit it or not.

Are you certain about that? I would like to hear from both sides with evidence, as it was my understanding that gradual change is supported by the fossil record.

For example, it is my understanding that the fossil record now does support the gradual morphing of Therapod Dinosaurs into Birds (which I consider considerably different)

 

[randman]

perpetual, real science is about nitpicking the facts and data whether you want to accept that or not.

 

[randman]

Are you certain about that? I would like to hear from both sides with evidence, as it was my understanding that gradual change is supported by the fossil record.

For example, it is my understanding that the fossil record now does support the gradual morphing of Therapod Dinosaurs into Birds (which I consider considerably different)

What do you mean by gradual? There is no documentation in the fossil record of gradual transitions. In other words, you can't line up a fossil of one species or family of species and then see the next species, genus or even family and the next until there is major change into some new family of species.

I use the family taxa level to be charitable. Obviously it would need to be species evolving into species evolving into species, which isn't seen either, but let's say that's due to fossil rarity.

Ok, then let's see it at the family taxa level. We don't see that either even though fossils representing families of species are not rare.

 

[Wowbagger]

wowabgger, how do you explain people that once accepted evo theory and now don't.

The sense of essentialism could vary in one's life time, as one's brain develops.

There could be other factors, as well. If one is pressured or attracted to accept bad arguments, and it becomes a part of their life: It can be difficult to climb out of it. Proper resolution of cognitive dissonance is not something humans are optimized for.

I am not claiming essentialism is the sole factor in predicting evolution denial. But, it is an important, key factor.

In some cases, one might accept evolution, at first, without understanding what it entails, and once they recognize that it violates their innate feelings, they will reject it.

It also works in reverse: Someone rejecting evolution at first, and coming to realize that it makes sense for them, later.

I believed in evolution and was challenged to look into the facts for myself.

I do not know enough about you to make any specific comments about you.

The simple fact of the matter is regardless of belief in common descent, a turtle is still different than a human being, and each has a differing set of specific characteristics, and to claim otherwise is to ignore empirical evidence.

Today it does. That was not always the case. Evidence suggests that if you back in time, far enough, they share a common ancestor.

If you do not accept that this notion could possibly be true, you might have Essentialism on the brain.

If you accept it is possible, but reject the current evidence, it could be something else.

Religious folks believe we all have a common source as well, namely God.

How is that any different?

If God designed and created the turtle and the rabbit separately, it still preserves the essentialist notion.

If they share a common natural ancestor, that split into populations of turtles and rabbits, it violates the essentialist notion.

The common ancestor would NOT be a turtle nor a rabbit. It would be a more primitve animal species. Since the essential characteristics fade, it becomes more difficult to accept.

At some point, you gotta say, hey, this is a crock of bs. The evidence is not there.

How are you measuring the quality of evidence?

I am measuring them on the basis of if they "work" or not. I don't think one can develop a higher standard than that. (NeoEvo works. Creationism does not.) But, you think you have a better standard to measure these things by, I would like to know what that is.

 

[randman]

Today it does. That was not always the case. Evidence suggests that if you back in time, far enough, they share a common ancestor

Wowbagger, with all due respect, this comment of your's is an illustration of the religious or pseudo-religious nature of many evolutionists. If you go back in time, turtles don't exist. Please get that point.

It matters not if there is a common ancestor or not. That was a different organism if it ever existed in the first place.

If God designed and created the turtle and the rabbit separately, it still preserves the essentialist notion.

If they share a common natural ancestor, that split into populations of turtles and rabbits, it violates the essentialist notion.

Honestly, this just comes off as nonsense. Doesn't matter one whit in terms of this area if various species evolved from a common source or they stemmed from a common Creator or both. Either way they are different.

When you eat a plant or animal, do you have feelings that you are cannibal? If not, if you ate a human being would you feel any different than eating a plant or animal?

If you think you just might feel queasy about eating human flesh, would that mean you suffer from essentialism?

 

[randman]

How are you measuring the quality of evidence?

I am measuring them on the basis of if they "work" or not. I don't think one can develop a higher standard than that.

I measure based on whether the facts match the data and for evos, they don't. If you mean do they "work" in terms of convincing people through illogic, faked data and overstatements, I don't accept that as valid.

Evo theory doesn't work. Doesn't explain the fossil record, or living biota, or molecular evidence, or just about anything.

 

[Mojo]

Wowbagger, with all due respect, this comment of your's is an illustration of the religious or pseudo-religious nature of many evolutionists. If you go back in time, turtles don't exist. Please get that point.

It matters not if there is a common ancestor or not. That was a different organism if it ever existed in the first place.

As anti-evolution arguments go, this is kind of unusual.

 

[Wowbagger]

I should note, (before I finally get some sleep), that evolution denial is NOT the only symptom of essentialist thinking.

There is also gender essentialism: Most people might think there are only two sexes: Male and Female, and they will routinely fail to recognize that there can be other states in between. (This becomes a hurdle in understanding the evolution of sex, but we don't have to get into that, if we don't want to.)

Life essentialism: The notion that someone is either "alive" or "dead", and failing to think that there could be states of life that fall between these two.

And fetal essentialism: The notion that a female can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant", and failing to recognize that there could be states inbetween.

Etc.

The typical essentialist would respond by saying something like "That's ridiculous!!! You're not making any sense!! Now you're talking nonsense!! How can that be possible??!!", etc.

But, we don't have to deal with most of those, here. We can stick with the evolution denial, if we want to. Perhaps the others are deserving of their own thread, if you want to get into them.

As anti-evolution arguments go, this is kind of unusual.

I think it's kinda unusual for anti-evolutionists to be faced with these sorts of arguments.

We are almost charting new territory, here. It could continue to be interesting.

 

[randman]

And fetal essentialism: The notion that a female can either be "pregnant" or "not pregnant", and failing to recognize that there could be states inbetween.

I think you have really left the reservation with this comment. Maybe there is a period where a woman is conceiving but for practical purposes, a woman is either pregnant or not. There is no in-between except for the process of conceiving. One day she is not pregnant and the other she is.

That's what empirical data shows.

It would be helpful since this is a science forum if you stuck with empirical data. Moreover, I highly suspect you are prone to essentialism as much as anyone else.

For example, are you married? Would it bother you if some other male had sex with your wife? If so, why? You can't be essentialist, you know. We are all the same.

Also, you ignored my comments on cannabilism.

Another......how about if you work and someone else gets the paycheck? Well, I know the government already does that in part but how about another individual? You object? Why, we are all the same.

You must suffer from essentialism on the brain.

 

[Pixel42]

Today's Doonesbury is on topic: http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury-slideshow/

 

[Mojo]

The typical essentialist would respond by saying something like "That's ridiculous!!! You're not making any sense!! Now you're talking nonsense!! How can that be possible??!!", etc.

I think you have really left the reservation with this comment. Maybe there is a period where a woman is conceiving but for practical purposes, a woman is either pregnant or not. There is no in-between except for the process of conceiving. One day she is not pregnant and the other she is.

 

[pakeha]

Nice one, pixel!

And as wowbagger wrote:

Creationism, and I.D., are entirely ontological in nature. At its core are ideas that may feel right in the minds of its proponents. But, there is nothing there to actually do anything with, in the real world. (Oh sure, they may try to make claims otherwise, but when pressed, they never pan out.)

Randman is simply repeating what he/she posted up earlier this year.
The Haekel drawing non-controversy is especially telling.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203961&highlight=Haekel

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Take the example of the biogenetic law and Haeckel's illustrations. For well over 100 years, creationists, IDers and others showed they were frauds but evos would not admit the illustrations were, at least widely, until the late 1990s. Sure, some did but they kept using the illustrations. Not too long after Richardson called them one of the biggest fakes in all biology, he wrote or lent his name to a paper that said they were actually "evidence for evolution"!

Five hundred years ago people like this would have been burning witches.

Information on Haeckels' embryos from antievolution.org.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think you have really left the reservation with this comment. Maybe there is a period where a woman is conceiving but for practical purposes, a woman is either pregnant or not. There is no in-between except for the process of conceiving. One day she is not pregnant and the other she is.

This old thread of mine might be of interest to you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140563

Moreover, I highly suspect you are prone to essentialism as much as anyone else.

There is nothing wrong with a little essentialism! Like I said, every human being feels this way, to a certain degree. Including me.

Would it bother you if some other male had sex with your wife? If so, why? You can't be essentialist, you know. We are all the same.

I know most men would not want other men having sex with their wife. However, this has little to essentialism, and more to do with pair-bonding and protection against being a cuckold (raising a child that is not your own).

Also, you ignored my comments on cannabilism.

It doesn't count as cannabilism if the common ancestor is millions of years old.

Another......how about if you work and someone else gets the paycheck? Well, I know the government already does that in part but how about another individual? You object? Why, we are all the same.

This has little to do with essentialism, and more to do with the psychological sense of entitlement.

You must suffer from essentialism on the brain.

Sometimes, I do! Again, there is nothing wrong with that.

The systematics and taxonomy aspects of science require the re-introduction of essentialism, for the purpose of building reference models.

As a software developer, I often have to translate complicated and chewy properties of the analog world into a digital one. This requires heavy essentialist-like modeling of stuff you know has lots of gray areas.

But, I can put such feelings aside when I evaluate what is going on in the processes of biology. My sense of essentialism is soooo weak, I can easily toss it aside without anxiety.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
That's what empirical data shows.

It would be helpful since this is a science forum if you stuck with empirical data. ...

What an interesting concept! So, tell us about all that empirical data for your deities.

 

[Dinwar]

Take the example of the biogenetic law and Haeckel's illustrations.

The last time you tried this garbage you were quite thoroughly debunked. At this point, I can only assume that you've abandoned all pretense of following the evidence (which ANTpogo has provided reams of).

Haeckel WAS NOT the standard in embriology for nearly as long as you claim.

Scientists KNEW there were errors.

SCIENTISTS corrected them, NOT Creationists (there were no ID advocates back then, as ID is the result of specific legal action in the United States of America).

You, randman, have a nasty habit of pretending that inconvenient evidence doesn't exist, while accusing scientists of the same error.

ETA:

Evo theory doesn't work. Doesn't explain the fossil record,

Funny. All the paleontologists I've ever spoken to accept that the fossil record is the best proof for evolution there is--it's the actual record of it. Odd.

I know most men would not want other men having sex with their wife. However, this has little to essentialism, and more to do with pair-bonding and protection against being a cuckold (raising a child that is not your own).

Never mind the breach of trust (most marriages involve some sort of exclusivity in sex).