“I’m no kin to the monkey!”
Posted by dorian on December 16, 2009
Anything Goes in this Post
- Home
- “A” PAGE ABOUT US…
- #Gamergate and what it is really about.
- A CHRISTIAN Conservative’s View
- A CHRISTIAN LIBERAL’s View
- A primer on the Government.
- Article Suggestion
- Blog Rating
- Born ATHEIST
- Christian Lies and Rumor.
- Does GOD “Hate Fags”?
- Fact of Evolution
- History of Separation of Church and State
- I NEED ADVICE
- Mind if I Vent?
- OUR ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE 21st CENTURY
- Our Favorite Music Videos
- Poetry(?)
- Project: Sanctuary
- SOPA/PIPA proof politicians view of “Small Government” is just buzz words.
- The Cost of Repealing the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Weekly Bills in the Senate and the House 2013
- Article Suggestion
- Same Sex Marriage
- “REVERSE IGNORANCE”….A TROUBLING NEW SOCIAL ILL
A Different Kind of Blog 
dorian said
evolution debate continued here from https://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/obamas-possible-reaction-to-his-election-and-nobel-peace-prize/#comment-15231
LikeLike
dorian said
SNARKIE THE FUNDIE MONKEY comments:
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
thanks for this new thread, Dorian. Why the very long first post though? It kinda takes away from the plan to reduce the scrolling time? Oh well…
Anyway, as I promised to SynapseAxion, here is our latest exchange;
SynapseAxion asks: “So the question one more time, rephrased: Is macroevolution a science based on observed regularities in nature, or is it a philosophy…or (Darwin forbid!), even a mere speculation?”
My answer:
Macroevolution is based on observations and measurements in the field and in the lab that are neither in contradiction to nor separate from the regularities of nature humans have described so far.
Here is my original answer to the original phrasing of the question. Since evolution occurs in the natural world, then all the other so-called “laws” of nature apply to it. In other words, macroevolution occurs by all the “laws” of nature, not separate from or in contradiction to them.
So in other words, macroevolution is good, solid science and is as well-supported as many other concepts that are not in dispute (anymore) such as heliocentrism for example.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
woohoo, TBG, a fresh start and hopefully some fresh ideas. I’m in the process of moving to another place right now, but will duck in and out of here as I can. I’ll try to answer your post tonight, hopefully. But until then, the response to your post right now is “No, ’tisn’t so” (a la Monty Python). Okay, j/k. I’m back out the door now….
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I have a comment in moderation on the other post.
LikeLike
dorian said
hi kay – i just did a cut and paste from the moderation page to here, i hope you don’t mind…d9
FROM KAY:
Submitted on 2009/12/16 at 8:33pm
1minion quoted me:
Kay at 216: “And “a Supreme Being” and “deities” are NOT the same thing. I was not necessarily proposing the Christian God in this context. Just simply the CONCEPT of A Supreme Being.
and said: ”
Define Supreme Being for us.
Define deity for us.
1st, I have to correct you… it’s dieties (plural)
These two are not the same thing..
Note that “Supreme Being” is capitalized and dieties is not. Any Christian could tell you how very different these two terms are… it’s fundamental to Christianity. But I can see how non Christians would not understand this.
1minion said: “Interesting notion, kay, and I see why it gets promoted as a possibility. Since earlier humanoid forms don’t quite match humanity as it looks today, then humanity has always looked like it looks today and those earlier humanoid forms were what, God’s first 20 drafts that never got a mention when the Bible was written?
God embarrassed by so many early mistakes he doesn’t want to admit to them on paper? ”
Yeah, that’s it.. you guessed it.
All I’m trying to say is that God can do whatever He wants. I don’t dismiss scientific findings but sorry, I’m not dismissing God either just because things can be proven by science.
And I will bring up this point yet again since all of the atheists here like to ignore and forget about it…
Our existence is not logical. “Not logical” is the opposite of logical and scientific right?
So, to make fun of people who choose to believe in a Supreme Being is really ignorant when you REMEMBER this fact… our existence is not logical. (the birth of our existence for the really ignorant here).
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
“Any Christian could tell you how very different these two terms are… it’s fundamental to Christianity. But I can see how non Christians would not understand this.”
So tell me. And deity is one, deities is more than one. Is a supreme being a deity or not?
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I don’t think our existence has to be logical.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I said: “God embarrassed by so many early mistakes he doesn’t want to admit to them on paper?”
Kay said: “Yeah, that’s it.. you guessed it.”
I was being sarcastic. Was Kay being serious?
Curiosity doesn’t kill this cat.. just makes her itchy for answers…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, when I said invoke Deities, I meant either one, or many, of various faiths. Some may call their God by different names, some might have more than one God, but the point I was making that to invoke ANY Deity OR Deities automatically makes it outside the realm of science.
So you DID contradict yourself, but only because you misunderstood what I said, which seems to be something you do quite often no matter how clearly I express myself. Most everybody else could see that you contradicted yourself there, even if you don’t. Now that you have explained yourself, I can see why you don’t THINK you contradicted yourself, but the reason you don’t think you contradicted yourself is because you misunderstood something clearly expressed that most people have no difficulty understanding the intended meaning of. Once again, demonstrating what I have pointed out over and over again. If you STILL don’t think you have a problem, you’re in denial of more than the fact of evolution.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
by the way, deities, Deities, supreme being, Supreme Being, god, Gods…no matter whether singular or plural, no matter whether capitalized or not, are all outside the realm of science.
Kay, you seem to have peculiar definitions that are not the same as the rest of the world uses. you need to make a dictionary of the terms you use with your definitions so everybody else can have some clue as to what you’re talking about. You, on the other hand, can check the dictionaries that everybody else uses to see what we’re talking about.
and by the way, are you saying then that supreme being and Supreme Being are not the same idea just because one is capitalized and the other is not? Oh I can see that perhaps the attitude of the one using the term can be guessed at by whether or not the term is capitalized, that perhaps the one who capitalizes Supreme Being respects God while the one who doesn’t capitalize supreme being
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
(continued…finger slipped)
does not. still seems a rather weak distinction. What if had said invoke Supreme Being instead of invoke deities, would that have been more clear to you? The reason I didn’t is that I was being more inclusive, saying deities to represent more than the ONE possiblity you say exists.
There is more than one alternate view of who the Creator is. The Bible is NOT the only alternative explanation, and even if one insists it is, your INTERPRETATION is not the only possible one.
I’d imagine if you lived a few hundred years ago Kay, you would be in favor of burning people at the stake for daring to suggest that the earth goes around the sun when the Bible (or at least your INTERPRETATION of the Bible) clearly teaches otherwise.
Sheesh…fundies…the village idiots of any society. Fundie Christians are just like the taliban and other wacko nutjob groups of different religions. It ain’t the religion that’s the problem, it’s the fundie attitude of ignorance, arrogance and intolerance that causes most of the problems of the world.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Speaking of monkeys – somebody make me this Spock Monkey. I no sew!
http://www.sciencefictiongeeks.com/2009/12/need-christmas-gift-idea-how-about-diy.html
Deities are gods, gods are deities. A supreme being is either an alien (think Dr. McCoy saying that someday he’d like to land on a planet and say, “I am the Archangel Gabriel!” and Spock’s eyebrow raise at that), or an unknowable supernatural being with great unfathomable powers that cannot be understood by a paltry human mind.
I’m sure the latter is how people tend to view “God”. I could accept gods if they were actually alien beings that haven’t gotten around to properly introducing themselves, but only because I love science fiction and that’s totally a scifi kind of thing. Or, God is a computer program running off a code that’s so full of bugs it’s almost better if the whole thing got wiped and redone from scratch, although there isn’t a person alive who’d be qualified to do it.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I also kind of like the (completely fictional) theory that there’s a dimension overlaying our own where the beings (angels?) can see everything we’re doing, but we can’t catch a glimpse of them. I’m surprised more people don’t claim that’s what causes ghosts – beings in another dimension but somehow visible in our own in some locations.. as if death really does open a door to somewhere else..
(Yeah, this is totally the booze talking, but I’m getting good ideas for stories for later.. and good I’m writing them down here. I can’t rely on my vodka-enhanced brainpan to remember this..)
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Oh, and I think I should undress in the dark from now on.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
another idea similar to what 1minion is talking about is the late Arthur C. Clarke’s great quote “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
LikeLike
kay~ms said
ok.. let me try it this way…
1st, yes, I acknowledge that a supreme being is the same as a diety by definition.
But meaning and context are pertinent here. (sometimes context can actually change a meaning and also the use of plurals and capitalizations).
You guys are harping on this because you feel it’s your best chance to actual “win” a debate with me on this issue.
I am presenting a valid point that atheists don’t seem to want to acknowledge.
so just keep avoiding the question…
1minion, yes you did say “I don’t think our existence has to be logical.”
But that doesn’t exactly acknowledge my point which I will try to phrase this way..
If our very existence isn’t logical then why can’t anything be possible? 1) A Creator. And 2) A Creator that can make scientific exceptions to his creation.
It’s not only possible… a Supreme Being (given our circumstances) is probable.
And it’s very sensible to believe that if a Supreme Being can create an entire universe (all of existence), He can also go against scientific law when ever He wants to… after all, He created the scientific law to begin with.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh oh oh 1minion said “death really does open a door to somewhere else..”
What an opening for me…I wrote a song about that lol
here are the relevant lyrics:
When you die are you no more, or will you somehow live forever
/ passing through some secret door beyond your life to where you never / hurt or sicken or grow old, never fear the loneliness / never feel the heat or cold, living free and happy in the / loving arms of God’s amazing grace? Talking with the friends you thought were lost. Free from all regrets and all disgrace, at what a cost? / To believe this would be nice. If you read the Bible, it says Jesus paid the price.
But if there is no afterlife, it doesn’t matter when I get there. / I won’t feel the stress or strife; I will be completely unaware / as I am food for worms, turning back to dust I am made from. / I won’t miss my parents then; I won’t know a thing and so I / figure it’s okay either way. Death is part of life after all. / It will find each of us someday, and when it calls we all must fall. / Death is part of life after all.
These are from my song Death that I wrote in 1995 and recorded just before Christmas last year to post on my web site. It is one of my better songs that I’d like to record properly someday, God willing, before I die. At least I have something up, the lyrics and a crappily-recorded mp3 that gives some idea of the music in my head.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I like how TBG suddenly capitalizes deities in comment #9. “stupid bitch”. And btw.. In a way I should thank you tbg for calling me a stupid bitch… it makes me feel less guilty for what I’ve been calling you.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and again Kay, I state clearly and unequivocally for the record that I am NOT an atheist. 1minion says he is, so that’s one thing. But I am not, yet you continue to lump me in with that group. Is it your opinion that anyone who doesn’t believe in the same God in the same way you do is an atheist? Again, that is YOUR definition then and that is NOT how the rest of the world defines that term.
Some people who argue against evolution pit it as a choice between religion and science, etc. and say that anyone who accepts the fact of evolution is automatically rejecting God and is an atheist. I say that it is YOU who are rejecting God by denying what is revealed in His creation. Are you one of the so-called Christians who say that no true Christian (look up no true Scotsman just for fun) can accept evolution? Would you say then that the many Christian denominations that do accept the fact of evolution are atheists?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
yw Kay. My pleasure. Anytime. Here, I’ll do it again since it makes you happy: stupid bitch.
It is ironic that in my post to the Talk Origins thread, that I referred to wacko nutjob fundies and someone said that I should make clear that some people would NOT call them names but would instead politefully, respectfully ask them to clarify their position. Another person then said that would be mean, because calling them names is something they can deal with while clarifying their position is something they are not capable of.
Duh!
Stupid bitch.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Go get some help… people like you shouldn’t have access to keyboards.. it only makes you more angry and possibly a danger to society… I hope you get a flat..
LikeLike
dorian said
uhm minion – those invisible creatures that see you see even better in the dark. muahahahh
“And it’s very sensible to believe that if a Supreme Being can create an entire universe (all of existence), He can also go against scientific law when ever He wants to… after all, He created the scientific law to begin with.”
i agree with kay here. a supreme being, after all, is omniscient and omnipotent. faith is outside the realm of logic anyway. it (faith in God or other divine beings) defies scientific explanation. “miraculous” manifestations of faith are many. some are debunked but others, not. ‘ would join in a debate on faith and God or no God. but not religion. that’s where interpretations create differences in the way i see God and the way kay sees God.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
gee thanks Kay…expressing your christian values, right? I thought so…
LikeLike
dorian said
okay, chill time, TBG and Kay…
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Actually all Christians ARE atheists, because they say that everyone else’s Gods but theirs are false. Hardcore atheists just take that idea one step further, that’s all.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
Hmmm, I see that the discussion has turned to God/gods instead of evolution/creation. Shall we keep it there, then?
Kay, I’m with you. I, too, believe in a Supreme Being Whose ways are higher than our ways and Whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts. A mind-boggling kind of God with probably a handful of spare universes in His back pocket. And guess what, I have evidence — scientific evidence — of the reality of the Creator’s existence. No, really.
But just in case TBG wants to continue the more boring and prosaic evolution/creation debate, please know that I am only addressing MACRO evolution, that theory (not fact) that claims that species can go from micro to macro as naturally as it is to jump a foot into the air, and then jump a second foot into the air using that first foot as the next base.
Okay. You said that macroevolution occurs by all the laws of nature. Nice safe generality that. ALL the laws.
Request: Name at least one law that governs the selection of the rare, random, beneficial mutation
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
gravity
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh and there’s been a comment of mine in moderation for at least four hours now. I just popped in and answered Synapse’s question, and the one I wrote a long time ago (before calling Kay names again) is still in moderation.
It is quite frustrating to try to carry on a conversation with somebody who consistently misrepresents what one says, continues to call one an atheist when one is not, continues to ignore the evidence of the world even after it is pointed out to her, continues to ask the same questions after they were addressed just because she doesn’t understand or doesn’t like the answers, contradicts herself but doesn’t see it that way, redefines commonly used words her own way, attempts to redefine whole fields of human enquiry such as science in ways that would render it useless (as Behe was forced to admit under oath that by his definitions of science one would have to include astrology etc.), etc. etc. etc. Considering all of the above, I believe I have been extraordinarily patient with her.
It IS funny too how she thanked me for calling her names, as predicted by those other people in the Talk Origins thread. Yeah, that is something creationists CAN deal with! Oh well.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
There is no fundamental difference between the processes of microevolution and macroevolution. Over time, microevolution leads to macroevolution. This is demonstrated by the fossil record, and as I pointed out before, by genetic evidence as well. The fossils are not only in the rocks; they are in our genes.
Wikipedia may have faults, but for being so accessible and for being free it is a good place for quick references. Also, there was a comparison a couple years back in which the accuracy of Wikipedia was similar to better-known encyclopedias such as Brittanica.
anyway…check the Wikipedia article on Macroevolution, which among other things says:
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale; Ernst W. Mayr stated that “transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species…it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[6] However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in speciation occurring over a single generation – this is especially common in plants.[7]
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Here’s an example of how gravity can affect macroevolution. if a particular organism’s survival is affected by how well it can jump, for example, then obviously gravity has an effect on which mutations that affect jumping either help or hinder that organism.
OH and here’s another quote from that wikipedia article that I still have open on the other tab of my browser. “They [creationists] may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species (“microevolution”), but deny that one species can evolve into another (“macroevolution”).[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on numerous occasions.[10]”
I used that <strong> tag to emphasize that last sentence. The truth hurts, don’t it?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
1minion said:
” I said: “God embarrassed by so many early mistakes he doesn’t want to admit to them on paper?”
Kay said: “Yeah, that’s it.. you guessed it.”
I was being sarcastic. Was Kay being serious?”
Hard to say 1minion. I can’t understand how anyone can be so much in denial of what is real. Regarding your question here, Poe’s Law comes to mind.
I quote:
Poe’s Law states:[1]
“ Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing. ”
Poe’s Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism.
LikeLike
dorian said
revelation# 99
the 8th deadly sin:
chocolate martinis
goodnight.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapseaxion thinks that “MACRO evolution, that theory (not fact) that claims that species can go from micro to macro as naturally as it is to jump a foot into the air, and then jump a second foot into the air using that first foot as the next base.”
Hey Synapse, where do you get the idea that macroevolution is anything like the way you describe it? A better way to think of it is as going up a staircase one step at at time instead of all in one leap. An even better explanation is at another WordPress blog called “The Sensuous Curmudgeon” that has a Dec. 31, 2008 post called Ben Franklin, Compound Interest, and Evolution.
I’d like to see your opinion of that post! Your reasoning (or lack of it) is something I encounter frequently in talking with people who are in denial of the fact of evolution.
IF evolution WERE the way the wacko nutjob fundies describe it, then of course it’s ridiculous and I wouldn’t buy it either. However, their descriptions are strawman caricatures, whether done intentionally or not. Anyone who does a little research with an open mind and heart to truth can easily find the flaws in the creationists’ arguments. Their motivations however, are known only to themselves and God. I know they are mistaken, but I do not and can not know whether this is from ignorance, stupidity, wickedness or insanity.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
You can see evidence in Evolution in the variety in humanity. The physical attributes of a certain group of people from a certain continent, share certain physical and social traits found in primates on that continent. I did not mean that as a racist statement, but more along the lines of truth. Then you have the change from that warmer climate to a colder climate. Paleontology found evidence that the Earth at one time could have been one whole land mass. A majority of that land mass until close to the ice age was a jungle climate. Then you go from Europe to what was persia. There are physical differences between the two. This was an adaptation to a very different climate. Then you goto asia, the humans there have physical traits that is the same adaptation stated above. I could go on, but I would rather address the psychology behind Christianity’s hatred for this subject, and a fundamentalist Christians hatred of Science. I am talking in generalizations here. Making it as simple to understand as possible. I hypothesize that a major reason for the Christian stance on evolution is not that it disproves God, but it is more likely (in Caucasians mainly) that it is a mix of racism and guilt. I mean look how many hundreds of years the White Europeans had slaves from Africa. It was a very long time the slave trade happened. For many many years these human beings where considered a lower form of human beings, or not human at all. Without a doubt these thousands, or at least hundreds of years of the social thought being exactly that. I mean we learn as children a lot more than we actually think. We pass on that body language and our prejudices to our children, they do it to their children and so on. In America the first civil rights movement, was infact, the civil war. But thousands of years of social prejudices just doesn’t go away. It took many years for people to even be open to the idea that these people were human beings. That’s where the guilt comes in. When the descendants of these people threw off the archaic mentality that these people with different color skin and attributes, where also and should be considered human beings. This is where the guilt comes in. For many years a slang vocabulary for someone descended from Africa was indeed monkeys. (For the reasons I stated above.) So a combination of racism and guilt, makes some people uneasy about this subject. (In some cases the racism is more evident than the guilt, but you have to know what true hate looks like when you hear it in a voice, and see it on a face. The same with guilt.) As for science trying to disprove God, that was because of the propaganda that was taught by Christianity for just as long as there was the African Slave Trade. Christianity taught that scientists were trying to replace God. This came from many instances but the most quoted was Galieo’s “heresy”. If anyone does not know it, he very loudly and publicly said the Church was wrong that the Earth was round and it orbited the Sun. So that propaganda stuck. Then in the 1960’s when we launched people in outer space, we saw definitive proof that the Earth was round. And did orbit the Sun. But the damage was already done due to Christian propaganda. It may take many generations to stamp out all the erroneous propaganda the organized religion professing that they are the ultimate authority on Christ and God. My thoughts is if the Church was wrong about the Earth, what other propaganda is wrong?
@1minion There is several theories in the realm of the metaphysical. I believe Albert Einstein wrote something about the possibility of multiple dimensions. It may have been someone else, it has been a long time sense I studied Quantum Theory. But the theories are out there, also multiple universes do appear quite frequently in the Talmud. (7 earths, 7 Heavens. They also have Quaballic references. (pronounced qwa-ball-ick Quaballah is pronounced qwa-ball-la and that is the phonetic spelling of the Hebrew word. It is very different from Kaballah. As its teachings explain a lot of symbology in the Torah and Talmud. Also it teaches numerology. How each number ties in with God, etc. The actual Hebrew text is interesting. There are transliterations with the original Hebrew text and then on the next page there is that same page but in English.) There are a lot of Quaballic references in both the full Old Testament, and the abridged Christian cannoncal New Testament. (The Christians have Old Testament lite, which mainly consists of the Torah.) Like I said this is not to be confused with the faddish Kaballah. That combines several things numerology, alchemy(not the propaganda version but the kind that was used in both spiritual practices and trades mainly in Italy.), and over the years it has incorporated other “New Age” (It is just as derogatory as a white person saying N***er.) philosophies dealing with spirituality. (It’s much different than religion, a spiritual practice does not necessarily require you to believe in a certain God. Since a true spiritual practice has no dogma of its own.) Of course Quaballah which is very different teaches you how to walk closer to God (The Hebrew/Christian version.)I figured I must make that perfectly clear since, someone’s hero likes to bunch things together in misdirection and gross misinformation. It was apart of the Christian Religion, until the misinformation propaganda that the organized Christian Religion started to teach and kill people that didn’t uphold the Church’s same viewpoint. Why am I telling you this? Because the idea of a multiverse is evident in every mythology, ancient religion, and even practiced religion. It is entirely possible that multiple dimension exist on different wave lengths. Metaphysical Scientists believe that every atom vibrates at a certain wavelength. That if you can actually increase these wavelengths on a molecular level it would be possible to travel between these theorized dimensions. Traditional Science teaches if that was to happen we would implode. There have been studies that have used sound (more primarily music) that have shown it that it would be plausible, but not possible with our current technology. If you have ever seen a live orchestra then you know that certain pieces of music have this peaceful effect while others have different effects. But some people describe a truly well played and beautiful peace as their heart beat in rhythm to the music. I am talking about the actual scale beat I hope I don’t have to explain this in writing. If you are confused what I mean snap your fingers moderately. That is more or less 4/4 time and the rhythm I am speaking of. (It doesn’t matter if you have the worlds greatest sound system, nothing compares to the actual thing. It is one of the things technology cannot do is imitate the reaction someone has due to the specific vibrations of the woodwind, brass, strings, and percussion sections.)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Give us another strawman caricature, Synapse…and here I thought you were someone I could have an intelligent discussion with…sheesh.
It has been easier for me to discuss issues with you than with she-who-cannot-be-named, but that last question you asked was really, really STUPID the way you phrased it. Macroevolution is NOT as you describe it. If you really think it is, no wonder you’re in denial of what is real.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oops…my bad Synapse. It wasn’t your question that was as stupid as the commentary before it, specifically “MACRO evolution, that theory (not fact) that claims that species can go from micro to macro as naturally as it is to jump a foot into the air, and then jump a second foot into the air using that first foot as the next base.”
Where did you come up with this idea anyway? Wow.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
minute 6:00 reminds me of TBG mocking Kay….
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I went out drinking last night instead of hanging around with you guys. Sorry.
From dorian at 23:
—
“i agree with kay here. a supreme being, after all, is omniscient and omnipotent.”
—-
That’s an assumption, nothing that can be proved conclusively. It is believed because people want to believe a god or supreme being or deity or intelligent space marshmallow has those capabilities. They want to believe it. They don’t need proof that it’s true in order to believe it, which leads to what you said next:
———
“faith is outside the realm of logic anyway. it (faith in God or other divine beings) defies scientific explanation.”
——-
Right. This is why people can turn away from the mystical realm of faith and gods and look at scientific explanations for things, even though there are questions we probably will never answer. But no (scientific) answer doesn’t automatically mean god is the answer. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s often the explanation given, though, isn’t it?
” “miraculous” manifestations of faith are many. some are debunked but others, not.”
Not yet. I had fun researching the background of Our Lady of Guadalupe the other day and how people can believe the painted cloth on display in Mexico somewhere is a miracle by the Virgin herself, and how scientists and specialists in fabric and art fields have revealed the reality of the thing – not miraculous at all.
Many miracles are hearsay stories that don’t get researched for factual details, but do get spread as truth by everyone who wants to believe them and pass them on. They wind up larger than life because people seem destined to imagine and dream of larger than life events transforming people into better people.
—–
” ‘ would join in a debate on faith and God or no God. but not religion. that’s where interpretations create differences in the way i see God and the way kay sees God.”
—-
People see what they want to see. People believe what they want to believe. People take a lesson from a situation that benefits their viewpoint, their way of looking at the world and it’s always a subjective lesson that only relates to that person.
But I think when enough people seem to think the same way, that’s what creates the religion, and more people are taught and trained to think that way, too, which helps the ideology grow in importance.
And that’s why there are so many god interpretations out there. Every church, every home, every town, every person has an idea of what god is or needs to be and makes their belief in that god fit those very subjective circumstances and desires.
And I think that’s why disputes happen – because everyone who claims to believe in god has built their god in their image.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, your answer to my request for a law that applies to the selection of the rare, random, beneficial mutation was: Gravity. And then you later elaborated by saying that “if a particular organism’s survival is affected by how well it can jump, for example, then obviously gravity has an effect on which mutations that affect jumping either help or hinder that organism.”
Question: Please explain in further detail how gravity affects a mutation to the “jumping gene”
Meanwhile, your answer of “gravity” nicely supports my ACCURATE description of macroevolution. Thank you. Gravity prevents one from using the first leap into the air as a foundation for the next leap. Likewise, micro can go only so far. Why? Because there is a much greater chance of harmful mutations affecting an organism, causing the rare beneficial mutation to be outnumbered and soon overwhelmed. The next step in the staircase towards macro will disappear.
I read the Ben Franklin post by the Sensuous Curmudgeon. Come on, that is rather shallow reasoning. The sensuous one did not take into account the aspect of harmful mutations in his comparison. The math sounds great as long as you leave out the fact that there are employees of the bank who are daily stealing dollars from the account. (These thieves would be the equivalent of the harmful mutations of the real world). No, I’m sorry, the curmudgeon has failed to make his point to the thinking mind.
Enkill, your philosophical thoughts on why creationists disagree with the evolutionary theory might be true for some, but not for all. That is an unfair characterization. And being anti-macroevolution does not mean being anti-science, or being a hater of science. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that.
Hey, I liked your description of vibrating particles. String theory is working along those lines. There are laws of the universe that we don’t even have a clue about as yet.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Look Synapse, it’s fairly simple.
I have no objections to your believing the earth is flat. It upsets me if you teach that to your children, but I still won’t try to stop you. IF you try to teach that to everybody else’s children in public schools, I STILL wouldn’t object UNTIL you try to put it into SCIENCE classrooms.
Science is based on evidence. If you want your version of creationism taught in SCIENCE classrooms, then do some SCIENCE that provides EVIDENCE to support your position. Now you claim that there isn’t evidence to support macroevolution, that it is mere speculation. Bullshit. You’re using rhetorical tricks akin to arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and other stupidities. SCIENTISTS agree that there IS evidence, and they are the ones who should know because science is what they do.
Okay then, so you can’t produce evidence that your version of creationism is valid. I’m not surprised. Then FALSIFY macroevolution with EVIDENCE it DOESN’T happen, okay? Let’s see you produce EVIDENCE that macroevolution doesn’t happen. Oh, and if want to replace a scientific concept with a competing idea, that competing idea needs to explain the EVIDENCE at least as well as the one it is replacing, without being contradicted by the EVIDENCE of the physical world.
A literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as you seem to believe HAS been falsified by many tests by many people over many years, so if that is what you’re suggesting as a replacement for macroevolution it is NOT acceptable AS science. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.
You could argue as Kay does that we can’t really trust what we can perceive with our senses, that God could make exceptions to the scientific laws He created, whatever. Those ARE speculations and are nothing more than desperate attempts to rationalize the FACT that the EVIDENCE suggests macroevolution does happen and your INTERPRETATION of the Book of Genesis is wrong. You’re related to a monkey. Get over it.
Here’s your latest question: Please explain in further detail how gravity affects a mutation to the “jumping gene”
I’ll humor you, a little bit more, but I am about to lose patience with you too even though Kay (God Bless Her) has done her best to teach me to have more than I used to have.
There can be different causes for mutations to happen, radiation, chemical mutagens, genetic drift. ALL of these mutations occur in the field of time and space where gravity occurs, which means the effects of gravity affect all of them. In other words, an imaginary universe without gravity (similar to Kay’s latest fantasy of an imaginary planet) would NOT be the same as the one we are in where these mutations DO occur the way they do, and while the mutations maybe could still occur, obviously they would be occurring in different circumstances and possibly by different mechanisms.
Once the mutation DOES occur, provided it is in the DNA of a reproductive cell, it can be passed to offspring. If the mutation just happens to confer some advantage, say with bigger leg muscles so the offspring COULD jump two feet in one leap (to humor your STUPID commentary from earlier), then that might give those offspring an advantage over other organisms in a particular environment (all of which include gravity btw) and be passed on to THEIR offspring.
Over millions of year, new species can arise by mutations building up to the point where the descendants no longer closely resemble the ancestors. However, the fossils in the rocks AND in the genes can still give hints as to which species led to which.
I have a question for YOU now, since I think I’ve answered two of yours in a row. I missed my turn!
Unless macroevolution DID happen, how do you account for the nested hierarchies of many different types of data that it so neatly and logically explains and predicts. Why would any of the nested hierarchies of different types of data match (produce the same tree of life) if it didn’t nappen?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
the physical structure of the universe is musical in nature. Everything we can perceive are vibrations of various frequencies. There are probably, almost certainly, many types of vibrations we cannot perceive or detect yet (and possibly never will) that may affect things we DO perceive in ways unknown to us.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a comment in moderation that answers Synapse’s question and poses one to him.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh and sure, yes I agree that if mutations harmful enough to cause an individual to not be able to survive in a particular environment occur, then of course whatever beneficial mutations had accrued from previous generations of ancestral species would not be passed on to future generations and would be lost. That has undoubtedly occurred many times, probably even most times.
BUT, if any of a particular population do survive to pass on their genes, if the harmful mutation isn’t harmful enough to wipe out the whole population, then there’s a chance no matter how small that particular line of development can continue. What’s more, a mutation that is harmful for a species in one environment may actually confer an advantage to that species if circumstances change.
A key thing to remember is that individuals don’t evolve; populations do.
My main points though, that I am VERY interested in hearing your responses to, are in the longer post where I basically point out why your arguments are full of shit. A literal reading of Genesis HAS been falsified so it can NOT be recommended as a SCIENTIFIC alternative to macroevolution. Macroevolution IS supported by many types of data that from nested hierarchies that only make sense if macroevolution happens.
Are you still going to insist that the sun goes around the earth? That is after all what the Bible clearly teaches. Ask Galileo!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
the earlier comment in moderation has posted, but now there’s another one waiting! lol lol lol
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i am the walrus, koo-koo-kachoo
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
in response to princessxxx: gesundheit!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have no comments in moderation. Everything I’ve said has posted. This message is pointless.
LikeLike
dorian said
aw shoot, TBG, every time i come to the computer i expect ” i have a comment in moderation” . my finger was ready to click to the admin site. you turned my world upside down now. clickus interruptus, man! #48 was not pointless. it threw me off. doesn’t take much, y’know!
Dsus – there’s a chord for you!
koo-koo-kachoo
LikeLike
Baron Bodissey said
To communicate effectively, agreeing on definitions ahead of time is crucial, otherwise you can argue past each other forever. To that end: Macroevolution is evolution that causes cladogenesis, the branching on the tree of life. It is nothing but an accumulation of microevolutionary events to the extent that divergent populations can no longer interbreed and thus become two different species. By that criterion — which is generally applicable to sexually reproducing species — macroevolution (the birth of new species) has been observed to occur both in the field and in the lab.
See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
It can hardly be speculation when it has been observed.
LikeLike
dorian said
my question is what is it that creationists have against monkeys? why take such offense to darwin’s evolution theory? is it general disdain for all things science because scientific evidence makes genesis improbable? or is it because they think that man, created by God of his own (caucasoid) image couldn’t have been, well, of simian origin?
LikeLike
dorian said
thank you, Baron, for the succinct definitions and the links.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
What Baron Bodissey said…yeah! thank you for the information and the links. Hey Synapseaxion, please do read post #50 by Baron Bodissey.
As for Dorian, clickus interruptus omg lol
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Baron Bodissey said “To communicate effectively, agreeing on definitions ahead of time is crucial…”
This is one of the problems I’ve had with Kay, who seems to define commonly-used words differently than the rest of the world. Even further, to try to redefine science…
Was it you Synapse who asked me if I had read the transcripts of the Dover trial? I think you mentioned Michael Behe, who by the way is not in denial of the age of the earth nor of common descent. Are you aware that in the trial he was forced under oath to admit that by his definition of what science is one would have to admit ASTROLOGY as being science? This is similar to Kay’s view…to redefine science in such a way renders it meaningless and useless.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
Enkill, your philosophical thoughts on why creationists disagree with the evolutionary theory might be true for some, but not for all. That is an unfair characterization. And being anti-macroevolution does not mean being anti-science, or being a hater of science. It would be nice if you would acknowledge that.
Actually its psychology on why creationists disagree with the evolutionary theory, and science not philosophy. And I support all my claims with techniques Anthropology and Human Behavior Scientists. Notice I did use the word fundamentalist. I was actually not making reference to you, but my favorite person to aggravate. See in my opinion, fundamentalism should be treated like a serious mental health disease, such as anorexia. Saying to yourself over and over that being thin is healthy, and being healthy is fat. There is a problem. There is a problem when a serious mental health disease carries on to social thinking. Like anorexia that teaches lies about health and fitness. Fundamentalists also spread their own types of lies. Post a few more times and I will tell you if you have the mental health disease known as…*booming narriator voice a la Family Guy.*….FUND-A-MENTALISM!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Fundies are not consistent in their beliefs. A fundie interpretation, applied consistently, would also insist the earth is flat instead of spherical and the sun goes around the earth instead of vice versa.
Something I *do* agree with E_E about is that fundamentalism is a serious mental defect. When people with this condition get into positions of authority it is quite dangerous for humanity and the planet.
Perhaps someday there may be a medical treatment for fundamentalism, a “sanity pill.” For now education is the best hope for those afflicted with this condition, which is another reason why it is so important that children be taught how to reason clearly. When taught properly, science is a good tool to teach people how to reason clearly. Unfortunately, there are many well-meaning but misinformed people who are trying to legislate ignorance in American public school science classrooms.
It is my sincere belief that if many of the creationists so opposed to the teaching of evolution actually had some clue as to what evidence actually exists and how it all ties together so neatly, logically and consistently, they would be PISSED at those sources they thought they should be able to trust that LIED to them and presented evolution as a strawman caricature. It ain’t the way the creationists present it.
One can accept gravity happens and believe in God, or accept gravity happens but not believe in God. However, it is insanity to say gravity doesn’t happen. Similarly, one can accept evolution happens and believe in God, or accept evolution happens and not believe in God. It is insanity to say evolution doesn’t happen though.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
If one accepts that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa, then one should not have any problems accepting the fact of evolution either. There is at least as much proof that humans and chimps share common ancestry as there is for the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Note that the Bible teaches geocentrism when interpreted literally the way the anti-evolution wacko nutjob fundies read Genesis, and that geocentrism used to be the official position of Christianity until the weight of evidence finally forced them to admit they were wrong.
Sooner or later, the weight of evidence will force those denominations in denial of evolution to also admit they were wrong about that, or they will fade into obscurity as the crackpot fringe cults they are.
A scary scenario is if the Christian Taliban get their wish and turn the USA into a theocracy. They *think* they’re going back to the roots of this country, doing what’s right and good, etc., but it would be disastrous for everyone.
The Founding Fathers were wise to put a wall of separation between church and state. Sometimes I wish they hadn’t. I actually wouldn’t mind giving some time, maybe not equal time but some time, to Christian fundie creationism in public school science classrooms because, IF IT WERE DONE HONESTLY, it would be a great way to teach children what science is and how it works.
If the anti-evolution wacko nutjobs actually got their wish to force their religious beliefs into public school science classrooms, they would deserve to have their children told the truth: that such beliefs are NOT supported by the evidence of the world.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
mercy TBG, why the rant? You are battling your pet strawmen, I see — flat earth, geocentrism and so on. Hey, I’m over here, talk to me. How about you ASK me what I believe instead of assuming. I hold none of the above positions, and I definitely do not believe that creation theory should be taught in public schools, not on the taxpayer’s dollar.
Sadly, you did not answer my question of: Please explain in further detail how gravity affects a mutation to the “jumping gene”. Instead, you seem to be saying that because a mutation exists in a world in which gravity is a law, therefore gravity contributes to mutations. 😦 Your answer is so broad that it explains nothing. You might as well say that apples are red because they exist in a world where gravity is a law. Come on, you can do better than that…..or maybe not.
Re your question on nested hierarchies, intelligence is known to create along the lines of nested hierarchies, so your question is moot. Once again, we are back to the interpretation of data.
Meanwhile the Baron is defining macroevolution to mean inability to interbreed. If that is what is considered to be macroevolution, then I’m going to have to use a different word to describe what I’m actually debating. I am questioning the concept that, given enough time, a dinosaur, for instance, will sprout wings and be so different in its physical form that it will now be called a bird. This change from forelegs to wings has never been observed, just speculated upon. It is this kind of fantastical morphing that I am addressing. And, puleeze, gravity is not an explanation for how wings grew on dinosaurs. Okay?
Dorian, I have nothing against monkeys. Do you think I do?
Enkill, what does fundamentalism consist of? I’d like to know if I should embrace the title or deny it.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
I am seething anger at fundamentalist Christians right now. Princess sure does know how to get me angry and the stupidity of fundamentalists. Actually fundamentalism is technically, a mental illness under the definition of mental illness.
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.
Blowing people up in the name of Allah is an example of this. Wanting to kill because someone makes caricatures of a prophet, or other biblical figure (the Greeks tried to arrest and try an artist for drawing satire drawings of Jesus surfing and smoking pot.) George W. Bush Jr. (Not really a fundamentalist, but Christian Fundamentalists that didn’t want to be in his political office thought he did a good job, that is the definition of insanity in practice. I mean he obviously isn’t smart, and a lot of his vocabulary comes from Superman comics. Possibly a speech or two. And America voted him into office once. Of course Kerry wasn’t much of a better choice.) Fire bombing an Abortion Clinic. Oklahoma City, The BTK killer, the Unibomber, the General extremely nonsensical, and borderline retarded musings of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin’s book. All examples of how fundamentalism actually ties into it being a mental illness.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Yep, Sarah Palin is a good example of the insanity, the main reason I voted against McCain last year. God Help Us if fundies have their fingers on “the button.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Where’s Dorian? I have a comment awaiting moderation. No, really. I’m not kidding. You can click on admin. This time you can go all the way.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
I have no comments. But pretend I just put something amazing here that left you all speechless.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I am pretending to be impressed. (what have I started? omg)
LikeLike
princessxxx said
i’m out in public, manatee county, looking at all the humanity buzzing around me, thinking to myself.
“these people would be lucky if they had half the intelligence of a monkey.
they’d be lucky if they weighed less than cow.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
archaeopteryx was enough of a find in the 19th century to strongly suggest birds came from dinosaurs. There have been many species of transitional forms found in china the past twenty or thirty years that show more of the stages of the transition, and the fragments of the genetic code that was learned from the tyrannosaur bone marrow had many pieces showing that it is the direct ancestor of today’s birds (mmmm tastes like chicken, with a hint of salamander).
Yes, intelligence is required to recognize that if any of the nested hierarchies of different types of DATA produce the same tree of life then macroevolution probably happened.
You might not have anything against monkeys, but what do you have against macroevolution. There is SO much data of so many different types that to deny it did is just as crazy as to deny gravity happens.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I gave your question more answers than it deserved considering that it is a meaningless question. The way you phrased the question, those rhetorical tricks so beloved of creationists, makes it so. It’s like asking “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Your flawed assumptions are built into the way you phrased the question.
Since you are so obsessed with insisting that interpretation of data is the problem here, let’s go back a step. DO you agree that there IS overwhelming evidence of many different types that at the very least strongly SUGGESTS macroevolution happens? Btw, I am NOT committing the same fallacy I just accused you of, because the evidence IS there and anyone can check this for themselves. If you give the sane answer, the no-brainer as you put it regarding my first question you answered, then please present an alternate model that explains and predicts that evidence at least as elegantly as macroevolution does and is not contradicted by that or other evidence known to science.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I see you use the word “morphing” in describing the change from dinosaurs to birds that HAS been observed. Forensic evidence is still evidence. The fossils are not only in the rocks but also in the genes.
Nothing personal against you Synapse, but that “morphing” term is one beloved of the creationists when creating those strawmen caricatures of evolution I was talking about. The more you post, the more you show you are resistant to truth, you DO hate science, and you are almost certainly a fundie wacky nutjob. Get help. Educate yourself.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Well Synapse, you had jumped into this discussion when it was already in progress, so some of my comments are not directed at you but at fundies such as Kay and her ilk who DO want creationism taught in public schools, and that is what gets me fired up. It’s bad enough for village idiots to abuse their own children by teaching them things contrary to reality regarding human origins and science in general, but when they try to dumb down everyone’s children in public schools they are going way too far and I step up to the plate for the children, for humanity, for the good of the planet, for truth, for love, and for GOD!
Okay instead of having me play twenty questions, why don’t you TELL me what you believe about this subject. Apparently you have strong doubts macroevolution happens. This is good. Doubting is what science is all about. To me, doubting Thomas was a good role model, but in the telling of his story the Bible advises everyone to believe stuff without evidence which makes it easier for those people to be controlled or taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals such as Bill Keller and his ilk.
DO you agree that the evidence DOES at the very least strongly suggest macroevolution happens, and if not, why not? If not, then you and I must live in different worlds, because on THIS planet the evidence is there.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
An FYI for Synapse
Did you know that Michael Behe, who was the star of so-called “intelligent design” before the Dover trial, accepts the age of the earth AND common descent? AND that under oath he admitted that to redefine science his way one would have to admit subjects such as ASTROLOGY as legitimate science?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapse claims “This change from forelegs to wings has never been observed, just speculated upon.”
WRONG! Just because humans did not exist at the time of this transition doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The fossils are not only in the rocks but in the genes. Also, as Baron pointed out, speciation HAS been observed in the field and in the lab. Life adapts and diversifies, or perishes. Most species that have ever lived went extinct, but some survived long enough to leave offspring with mutations such that over time the POPULATIONS evolved into different species.
There are transitional forms between fish and land animals, between dinosaurs and birds, between land animals and whales, and between apes and humans. Are you saying these transitional forms don’t exist? That is a LIE! If you’re saying they did not evolve, how else do you explain the fossil record (and I include the fossil record to mean the fossils in the genes as well as those in the rocks)?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
If you are not anti-science, please DO explain your position Synapse instead of leaving us guessing. All I can gather is that you are unwilling to admit there is evidence for macroevoluiton, and your main argument so far as I can tell is that regardless of whatever evidence there is, no matter how obviously it suggests macroevolution happens, you still say that it is all a matter of how one INTERPRETS that evidence.
Pray tell, what DO you believe if you’re not a fundie? If as you claim you are opposed to teaching creationism in public schools, that is fine. We agree on that. Hooray. However, even though you didn’t say the following, your (lame) arguments seem to imply that you also don’t want macroevolution taught in public schools. Is this so?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapse says: “Re your question on nested hierarchies, intelligence is known to create along the lines of nested hierarchies, so your question is moot. Once again, we are back to the interpretation of data.”
I call: BULLSHIT!
The data of many different types groups ITSELF naturally in nested hierarchies because of the values of what is being measured. It isn’t the people measuring this data that give the data the values they have. These various types of data, and like I said, of many different types, form clusters that ARE nested hierarchies.
Macroevolution explains and predicts these nicely. The interpretations people DO put on these clusters of data can be used to form so-called “trees” of life showing how different organisms MAY BE related to each other. That is interpretation, sure, and like you said, it takes INTELLIGENCE to see that, something you apparently lack or are unwilling to use regarding this particular topic.
What gets me is IF macroevolution isn’t true, what alternate model do you propose that can account for these nested hierarchies of data that it so neatly explains AND predicts?
Even more amazing is that different types of data, some that would normally be considered not directly related to each other, form the same clusters for relative organisms (the DATA), in other words, produce the same tree of life (the interpretation).
Any ONE of these nested hierarchies of DATA are strong evidence for the interpretation that macroevolution oocurs, but that some of them MATCH is evidence in itself, even stronger than when they are considered standing alone.
So to claim that all this data is like in a jumble, and that it is humans INTERPRETING it thus creating the nested arrangement, THAT IS BULLSHIT. The data is what it is, and the nested hierarchies exist. Macroevolution explains and predicts what we observe. WHAT do you propose in its place, and WHY do you think that this data does not support macroevolution?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a comment awaiting moderation that again points out when Synapseaxion is trying to bullshit us and ignore what is real.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay, I just posted a comment, a relatively short one. Well not very long anyway. It went into moderation, so I posted a VERY short additional comment to announce that the previous one was awaiting moderation. THAT went into moderation, so I’m posting this third one now hoping that this time, it will get posted. Fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc.
If THIS ONE doesn’t post, I MIGHT post one more just for fun. Let’s see. Ready, GO!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh my bad…I am pretty sure I misunderstood Synapseaxion when he said “intelligence is known to create along the lines of nested hierarchies.”
I *thought* he meant that it was the humans interpreting the data that created the nested hierarchies of data, which is as I say, bullshit. IF he acknowledges that the nested hierarchies of data are NOT interpretation, then I apologize.
If it IS this second meaning, then apparently Synapse is saying that an “intelligent designer” CREATED the life being observed and CREATED it in such a way that the data falls into nested hierarchies. Okay, let’s run with that…
First off, do you synapse agree with the above correction to my earlier post when I may have misuderstood what you meant? Do I have it “right” now (by right I mean what you meant to say, not conceding that it is technically correct in any real sense)?
IF so, then fine. So you DO agree that the data IS in nested hierarchies right? Good. Do you also then agree that macroevolution explains and predicts those nested hierarchies nicely? IF so, good, you’re not quite as crazy as I thought you might be.
Now are you saying that an “intelligent designer” created all these organisms separately, that none of them actually evolved from each other (at least not transitions like dinosaurs to birds to use your example)? That gets a little closer to la la land, friend. If so, then please explain the fossils in the rocks and in the genes.
could it be that as 1minion suggested and Kay actually agreed, that what LOOK like transitional forms are God’s “rough drafts” so to speak? This is getting crazier and crazier….
Sure, such SPECULATION could be possible, but it AIN’T science.
I have absolutely NO problems with a science teacher in a public school telling the children that some people believe God or an intelligent designer created the universe and all living things including humans. Heck, I believe that myself (just a little differently than the way Kay believes…we quibble on the details).
However, once that statement is made, then what, are you saying that any time the teacher tries to communicate some of what science has learned about how the universe works, that EVERY TIME the teacher says anything scientific he or she needs to add the warning that “some people believe otherwise” or “some people think Goddidit”?
that gets old in a hurry friend. No science teacher should make any claim that science can explain everything, especially ultimate causes. But as far as the amount and types of evidence suggesting it happens, macroevolution is quite possibly the most well-proven scientific FACT known to modern man, with at LEAST as much evidence humans are related to chimps as there is for an astronomy teacher (for example) to teach AS FACT that the earth goes around the sun.
So, are you one of those who subscribe to so-called “intelligent design”? Gee Dover must have hurt, huh? the Discovery Institute tried to distance itself from the trial…the star if ID Behe showed that ID is NOT science, that if one is to call it science one also would have to give ASTROLOGY the same respect…
Sheesh…lol
ARE you a proponent of “intelligent design”? It doesn’t have to conflict with evolution you know. You can accept the reality evolution happens and believe in God, OR you can accept the reality evolution happens and NOT believe in God, OR you can deny the fact evolution happens, in which case whether or not you believe in God you are in denial of what is observably and measurably real, or in other words, by any reasonable standard, insane.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Okay made a correction to myself. I probably misunderstood Synapse. If so the middling size comment I just posted (that went to moderation…duh) points out how what he probably meant to say is BULLSHIT in a different way than what he said is BULLSHIT if he meant it the way I thought he did at first.
Either way, Synapse, what you said is BULLSHIT.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and now there are many comments awaiting moderation…la la la.
I will NOT post another to announce that after this…I will NOT. I WON’T…oh it is so tempting, but NO!!!!
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, here is your question:
DO you agree that there IS overwhelming evidence of many different types that at the very least strongly SUGGESTS macroevolution happens?
Answer: The “overwhelming evidence of many different types” will suggest exactly what your filter brings to it. Your filter has been shaped by Darwinian thought, and therefore the mountains of data strongly SUGGESTS macroevolution to you. My filter has been shaped by Christian theology, and so the mountains of data strongly SUGGESTS to me that nature was created through intelligent planning, and that the design we see in nature is not accidental, but deliberate.
Okay, you want an alternate model that explains and predicts the evidence. Stay awake now, don’t fall asleep, because I’m going to give you the same old now-boring answer: A reasonable alternate model is …. drum roll ….. INTELLIGENCE. There is solid, hands-on, observational, scientific evidence as to the reality of intelligence behind the universe, but even without that hard scientific evidence, you could still catch glimpses of this intelligence through the circumstantial evidence of intelligence in nature.
Okay, so how does the model of intelligence work?
First study the characteristics of intelligence and see if those same characteristics appear in nature. If they do (and they do), then the data will strongly suggest that intelligence is the source of nature. At the same time, study the characteristics of the laws of nature. Track the limits of these laws, and if there is evidence for activity beyond and above what the laws of nature are known to be able to do, then it is reasonable to deduce that some force above the laws of nature is evident.
What to look for as corroboration of evolution versus intelligent creation?
If evolution of the species occurs through random mutations, then what you should expect to see in nature is the kind of results that come from chance activity; i.e., disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability. This, we do not see in nature, therefore, evolution through random mutations does not seem reasonable.
But if species were created via intelligent planning and goal orientation, then you should expect to see evidence of planning and goal orientation in the systems of nature. This we see, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the nature was created through purpose. At this level of evidence, you don’t need Scripture or any other theological source to inform you that there is Mind behind the universe. You could just stop at the point of recognizing intelligence behind the universe and science will move on apace.
I think the problem arises when one is faced with the possibility of some Intelligence behind the universe. Immediately, the next question is WHO is this intelligence. And it is this search that can take you into the field of philosophy or religion, and out of the field of science. Unfortunately, I think, it is feared that students will go on this search for God and therefore, an effort is made to stifle such a tendency in the science field. The concern seems to be that by acknowledging intelligence, students might be tipped into religion, and since religion must not be taught in public schools, then it’s better to stay away from any such acknowledgement at all. That, imo, is unnecessary fear. Surely, you can figure out just where to draw the line between science and philosophy, instead of stifling further inquiry, right?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability. This, we do not see in nature,
OH REALLY?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Ty for your answer Synapse, and that you have more patience with me than I’ve shown for you. You are a blessing to me and I thank you.
You said: “If evolution of the species occurs through random mutations, then what you should expect to see in nature is the kind of results that come from chance activity; i.e., disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability. This, we do not see in nature, therefore, evolution through random mutations”
WRONG WRONG WRONG
You are misrepresenting evolution. This is one of those strawman caricatures so beloved of creationist. Sure, if evolution WERE this way, of course it doesn’t match our observations of nature, of course it’s ridiculous, and I wouldn’t accept it either. BUT THIS AIN’T HOW IT IS!
And if you’re going to argue “intelligent” design, check out that Robin williams YouTube clip E_E posted around minute 6. If anything, it is the imperfections of “design” that support evolution more than so-called “intelligent design.”
Now I’m willing to concede that God may step in every generation to make particular atoms jiggle in certain ways for them to combine in ways that further his plan, his goal. But apparently, based on the evidence of His creation, macroevolution is how God works, and if he DOESN’T do it this way, then why oh why does everything we can observe and measure suggest that He does?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
oh, lol tbg, we posted at the same time about the same error in Syn Apes comment.. good job.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
There is an easy solution to this cultural disagreement (it si by no means a scientific disagreement despite creationist attempts to portray it as such):
Keep science in science classrooms.
Keep religion out of science classrooms.
Teach kids how science works, including its limitations (and it has many).
Teach kids alternative explanations for our reality, but DON’T PRESENT THEM AS SCIENCE IF THEY AREN’T SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS…let’s be honest, please.
Those alternative explanations can be alluded to in a public school science classroom, with a brief statement that would take maybe thirty seconds at the beginning of the semester that not everybody accepts the findings of modern science and some people have different opinions based on faith.
This is DIFFERENT than the bullshit statement some well-meaning but ignorant state legislatures tried to put into biology textbooks trying to say that evolution is “just a theory” and that alternate scientific explanations exist for the evidence.
Teach creation myths where they belong, in a mythology course that includes those from other cultures. Like it or not, the christian creation myth is NOT the only one. There are some others from other cultures that deserve to be mentioned too. But none of these MYTHS belong in science classrooms because, at least for the fundie Christian version, they are NOT supported by scientific evidence and in some cases (as for the fundie christian version), they have been falsified by scientific tests.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
yeah, syn APES (good one, Princess) isn’t as sane or logical as I thought he might be earlier in our debate. The more he posts, the easier it is to spot his errors. Of course he may not think they’re errors. He probably thinks we’re the ones who are wrong…
some mentally defective people (and I include MYSELF here) are aware of at least some of their mental defects. However, I am neither so stupid nor so crazy that I can’t spot such obvious BULLSHIT as Synapse is spewing…
Yeah, IF evolution WERE the way he presents it, I wouldn’t agree with it either. But whether he has been lied to and is repeating the lies, or if he’s making the lies up all by himself, either way he’s WRONG.
I call BULLSHIT!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
okay, I guess I did not express myself clearly enough such that it caused TBG and Princess to see red — well “red” for TBG and a little bit of pinkness for Princess since she refrained from the cap keys.
I should have included the following words that are now in bold: “If evolution of the species occurs through random mutations, then what you should expect to see in nature is the kind of results that come from chance activity; i.e., disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability all the time.
Nature, on a whole, is predictable, regular, consistent. That is why we can describe its activities as laws. But if nature evolved based strictly on the rare, random, beneficial mutation, that mechanism is one that will produce chaos all the time, not just here and there (which indicates that something has gone wrong with the system). Since we do not see this kind of across-the-board chaos in nature, therefore, evolution through random mutations is not reasonable … to me.
Better now? Princess? TBG?
So….as long as the proffered mechanism for origins and evolution is that of the random, chance, mutation, we should expect the results to be constant chaos.
In case you still disagree, here’s the next question: Has it ever been demonstrated that chance and random activity will produce organization, order, and integrated systems?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and as a matter of fact, we DO see a lot of “disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability” in nature. So you’re wrong AGAIN! omg…
as with that earlier quotation, where I misunderstood you and pointed out the bullshit I THOUGHT you were saying, then corrected myself and pointed out the bullshit of what you probably were saying…
so with this, first off, evolution shows life diversifying, working and adapting from what it has to work with, so that’s not exactly chaos now is it? But secondly, there is a lot of disorder in nature, so either way you’re WRONG!
Sheesh. Are you really THAT stupid Synapse? I thought that there was a chance at least of having an intelligent conversation with a Christian creationist, especially, if as you claim, you are NOT a fundie (sure could fool me though about that…walks like a duck etc.)
BUT NO, you distort the evidence, use twisted logic, jump to assumptions that are FALSE, etc. You’re really not much different than Kay in this regard.
Both of you apparently want to redefine science to include supernatural agents that have no physical proof they exist. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Have the science teachers tell the students AS THEY SHOULD that science DOES NOT have all the answers, then let them teach what science can do, okay?
Don’t include your ridiculous fantasies that are totally unsupported by evidence into science classrooms, okay?
Learn to think and reason clearly from evidence instead of just learning how to use rhetorical tricks to twist words around to create strawman caricatures? Why don’t you learn a little bit about what science is, how it works, what evidence exists and how macroevolution explains and predicts that evidence so neatly before making such ridiculous stupid just plain wrong arguments, okay? Oh and when I say okay, I also mean osynapse.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Look synapse, your rephrasing of the question doesn’t change the basic fact that you don’t like what the evidence of the world suggests so you’re trying to use rhetorical tricks to make it look like your position has scientific support when it doesn’t.
Stop trying to redefine science. As your star Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath, by creationist standards even something as stupid as astrology that has NO scientific proof at all (the same as the case for christian fundie creationism btw) has to be given the same respect and authority as chemistry, physics or astronomy that are based on tons of observations with well-thought out conclusions that have been checked and verified millions of times by millions of people.
I am not going to buy into your game Synapse, because that is all it is. I am perfectly willing to admit intelligent design is possible, maybe even probable, maybe ever CERTAIN. However, the way it is proposed now, which is to LIE about the evidence for macroevolution, is something I cannot and will not agree to.
IF you knew what I know, perhaps you wouldn’t make the stupid statements you do. I don’t know. That is between you and God. If you want to redefine science, go ahead and try. Be sure that whatever you come up with is at least as useful as what we have now though, because if you give astrology the same weight of authority as astronomy that is stupid, useless and wrong.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Oh I’ll comment just one more time on one more of your statements…I’m about ready to leave this thread Synapse, and if you want to. as Kay does, be like the pigeon playing chess you can knock over the pieces, crap on the board then fly back to your flock to proclaim victory. (Princess, we need your pigeon playing chess graphics again). Just to make it clear, redefining science the way you and Kay want to do is like knocking over the pieces and crapping on the board.
Synapse said: “But if nature evolved based strictly on the rare, random, beneficial mutation, that mechanism is one that will produce chaos all the time,”
My answer: “WRONG”
sheesh…whether or not a fundie, you sure sound like one
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Has it ever been demonstrated that chance and random activity will produce organization, order, and integrated systems?
Yes
LikeLike
E_E said
Synaps YAAFM….
I will tell you why,disorder, inconsistency, irregularities, chaos, unpredictability and your claim it doesn’t exist in nature.
There is no clear order to the weather system alone, not to mention the tetanic plates shifting, (Earthquakes are not a product of something happening in hell…), Hurricanes wind direction and wind strength. When it is going to rain. DO YOU NEED MORE? I havent experienced the Earthquakes. But I can tell you coming from one of the states that has the most unpredictable weather in the US. That you cannot truly predict them. I used to be a Shrimper in the Gulf of Mexico. I can recall more instances than I can count in the past two years where I was working and it is an absolute clear night with a 20% chance of rain. Then all of a sudden a really heavy storm comes through. This is 7 miles away from shore. Winds that go from half a knot to 2-3 knots. Just out of nowhere a storm can appear. It can be a clear day and a multitude of things can happen. Hell Hurricanes rarely act like they say on the news. I can recall Ivan, and Charlie. They where supposed to hit around the Louisana area, and then it hits directly in the tampa bay area. Ever see a tropical storm system form from nothing? I have it was scary. This planet has no underlying obvious order. There is a bigger order, even though it looks like random things are going on. Everything is interconnected. We are all part of a whole. And each part that makes up this whole effects another part. We effect the weather system and climate changes. It is because of man the whole global warming system is happening earlier than it happens naturally. I mean plants today are a mixture of multiple plants of the past. Look at how dogs are made. (Dogs were made by man using elements found true in microevolution.) Look how our bodies are changing because of climate, and diet changes. That is microevolution. Macroevolution is something that is happening over millions and billions of years. Macroevolution to put it plainly is the sum of the whole. It is what happens after millions and billions of years of microevolution. In a billion years mankind may have wings, or have frail bodies but with powerful brains. Or we may look the same outwardly, but inside there would be huge differences.
But you sir SYNAP, you are completely off base.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
my answer is based on the idea of a temporary local decrease in entropy (one definition of living systems) here on earth being made possible by a much greater increase of entropy on the sun.
Now if you step out and include the sun as part of the system, I would change my answer slightly to that one part of the system CAN increase in order and complexity as long as other parts tend the other way such that the overall entropy of the system increases.
Your question is still loaded with bias though the way it is phrased. It really isn’t much different than asking “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Well, have you?
Evolution happens in the context of all the other facts of nature we are aware of, neither separate from nor in contradiction to any of them. You try to make it sound like to accept evolution means you believe in random chance causing everything to happen. That is NOT the scientific position and is yet ANOTHER STRAWMAN. Get some new material will ya? I’ve heard such lies and bullshit for decades now, and while you started this debate with pretty good messages the more you say the more it becomes clear you ARE anti-science and as I see it, anti-God for denying the reality of His creation. Educate yourself, or shut the fuck up.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Strawman alert:
synapse claims “So….as long as the proffered mechanism for origins and evolution is that of the random, chance, mutation, we should expect the results to be constant chaos. ”
Uh, you’re forgetting the OTHER part…you know, SELECTION! Selection is NOT random, duh!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
e_e, one day we should hang out, maybe go to hernando county and act like thug pansies.
it would be fun.
i know exactly what we are going to look like in the future.
it “is” the frail bodies, no thumbs, telepathic, completely dependant on machines.
been there, done that.
btw, i love GTA4 Episodes of Liberty City. So far the game i’ve enjoyed most.
great stories and liberty city is so fleshed out in detail. notty language.
it’s a work of art.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
tbg, he warned you from the start he was one of those “unwashed masses.”
LikeLike
princessxxx said
Creationist Junk Debunked #1 – Introduction
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
In spite of spewing lies and bullshit, at least synapse has been more civil to me than I have to him.
There are some places he makes it clear that these are problems he has, sincere concerns. Other places though, make me wonder about his honesty. As when I gave specific answers to specific questions and not once, but twice, Synapseaxion then tried to sneak in unwarranted assumptions in his commentary to my answers and then go on from there as if I had agreed to his bullshit INTERPRETATION of my answers.
Also, his use of the word “morphing” is a clue he may be a troll, maybe even someone from the Discovery Institute or at least someone who buys their crap or that of similar so-called intelligent design web sites. Individuals don’t morph; populations do over time. That has been observed. It is NOT just “speculation” as Synapse falsely claims.
And the dishonesty of implying that random chance is the only mechanism of evolution. Either Synapse really doesn’t know anything at all about the science of evolution, OR he is spreading lies to deceive the public on purpose. Either way, he is wrong.
What is so hard about accepting a fact of nature, people? It should be a way to celebrate God’s glory. Instead, some people will contort the truth to an extraordinary degree to try to rationalize a belief system that is quite plainly contradicted by the evidence of the physical world.
I really don’t care at all what they believe UNTIL they try to legislate ignorance in public school science classrooms and dumb down our kids to their level. It’s debatable whether or not they should be allowed their OWN kids to that level of stupidity, but we do need people to dig ditches and collect the garbage. It’s way out of line for them to try to force everybody’s kids to hear that crap.
if creationists don’t want their children learning modern science, fine, let them home school them. Stop trying to make science something it isn’t, and stop trying to insert a narrow sectarian RELIGIOUS view onto everybody else’s kids.
Amen. TBG
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
You were a shrimper, E_E? Cool.
about randomness and order, a lot of it depends on what level of magnification one is looking at something with, or to put it into spiritual terms, from which level of awareness or consciousness.
Alan Watts’ mother worked with embroidery. Alan was fascinated by cloth, how a piece of string can hold together as something like a piece of cloth. It is the warp and woof, which is an analogy of the foreground and background of reality.
In addition to using cloth as a metaphor for reality, Alan Watts also described looking at it with various levels of magnification, and how one’s INTERPRETATION of what one saw differed when one cranked up the volume. What one sees looks like randomness, then like order, then like randomness, then like order, etc. as one changes the level of magnification one views it at, and it’s like that all the way down.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a comment that’s been in moderation all night. I just posted another that showed up right away. Now I will attempt to post this one announcing that the earlier one hadn’t posted yet.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, if you want to throw over the chessboard, scatter the pieces and storm out of the room, feel free. We don’t need to continue the discussion if it is your desire to quit.
E_E proffered storms as evidence that there is unpredictability and disorder in nature. Sure, I agree. Indeed, creation theory explains why there is disorder found in a world that is generally orderly and governed by laws.
Evolution theory, on the other hand, because its basic mechanism is the random mutation selected for, must embrace the fact that its theory really predicts constant, across-the-board chaos and disorder, because that is the nature of chance activity — confusion and lack of organization. Yet we do not see this in nature. We see general order, punctuated by moments of disorder.
The unpredictability of storms, as per e_e, may partially answer my question, but it does not fit the requirement that random chance activity must produce order and organization. When has a tornado, for example, been observed to produce order and organization?
But then, again, you guys are at liberty to believe six impossible things before breakfast. It’s a free world.
But back to the line of questions, TBG. The question was: Has it ever been demonstrated that chance and random activity will produce organization, order, and integrated systems?
Your answer was: Yes.
Well, that’s a start. You later added that natural selection is the means by which random activity becomes organized. Good, more progress.
Now, you would agree that natural selection does not have goals, right? It does not truly select or choose anything. It is just supposed to be a condition in nature whereby the life form with the advantageous mutation outlives its less favored relative. Right?
Question: How does a single mutation to a single allele in a dinosaur’s gene get selected for its flying advantage when the first ratchet or barbule has not yet even formed because it is waiting for its next rare beneficial mutation to come along to continue the building of a wing?
And, Princess, clever of you to rename me Syn Apes. But this is really how I pronounce it: sin (as in “inn”) ap (as in application) and zee-on. Sinapzion.
TBG, I’m going to be out for most of the rest of today. I may try to post something tonight if you or anyone else is still in this “room” and then tomorrow, sometime, my computer goes down until Tuesday, the 22nd, because it will be moved to my new location. Just a heads up in case you think I’ve lost all interest in the discussion.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapse says: “Evolution theory, on the other hand, because its basic mechanism is the random mutation selected for, must embrace the fact that its theory really predicts constant, across-the-board chaos and disorder, because that is the nature of chance activity — confusion and lack of organization.”
This is a strawman caricature of evolution Synapse. Have you stopped beating your wife? Educate yourself, or even if you don’t want that (God forbid you might learn something that contradicts what you are comfortable with), at least don’t try to keep our children from learning.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Evolution predicts that populations of organisms either adapt to their environment by shifts in the relative frequencies of alleles being expressed in response to stresses from that environment, OR they perish.
This is what is predicted by evolution. This is also what is observed in the real world. This is what the evidence of the world suggests, and evolution explains that evidence neatly.
We do not as yet and possibly, even probably NEVER WILL understand every detail of every change to every individual of every generation of every species that has ever existed, but that is the level of “proof” some creationists seem to be looking for. Nope, science can’t give you absolutes. Sorry. Go to church for that, but keep your FANTASIES and SPECULATION out of science classrooms until or unless they can be supported by some type of physical proof that can be subjected to scientific analysis.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
How ironic that Synapse says “But then, again, you guys are at liberty to believe six impossible things before breakfast. It’s a free world.”
I accept evolution because of tons of evidence that it so neatly and logically explains. You are in denial of it because…?
It is YOUR belief that is based on faith. Mine is based on evidence. That is one of the problems I have with fundie churches, not the only one because of serious theological issues but one of them. Fundie churches should have a sign up to “check your brain at the door.”
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and you claim you’re NOT a fundie, right? Then you shouldn’t have any difficulties with the science of evolution…BUT the way you portray it shows you do NOT understand what you are in disagreement with. IF you do a little research and find out what evolution actually does explain and predict, and why, and what evidence actually exists, then you MIGHT be able to ask some intelligent questions worthy of being answered. Right now all you are doing is spewing bullshit, or pigeon crap as the case may be.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have three comments in moderation in this thread
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I do not at this time have any comments in moderation in this thread. This message is to tease Dorian. Nothing to click here people. Move along!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
It seems to be a waste of time discussing this issue with you, Synapseaxion. Based on your strawman caricatures of evolution, it seems you have little or no understanding of this subject, and I have neither the time nor the patience (especially not the patience) to try to educate you.
Also, you seem to be following a script in the order and wording of the questions you’re posing. Who writes your material? It’s nothing I haven’t seen before, and nothing that hasn’t been addressed many times by many people more qualified than I am to point out the flaws in your arguments.
So you DO admit that there are nested hierarchies of many different types of data that all can be interpreted in such a way that they produce the SAME tree of life, or am I putting words into your mouth? Doesn’t that strike you as just a bit odd, that so many measurements of such different types of data produce the same tree of life that is so neatly explaned AND predicted by macroevolution? Even Kay was humble enough to admit that yes, such nested hierarchies strongly SUGGEST macroevolution happens.
You on the other hand, seem like a sneaky bastard, not much different than a snake oil salesman. Judge Jones in the Dover trial called it like it is, the so-called intelligent design crowd show “breathtaking inanity” (to quote the Judge…that was a good one Judge Jones!).
IF you can FALSIFY macroevolution, PLEASE DO SO! Please, present some scientific that shows it DOESN’T happen and the world will be grateful to you, especially the scientists. OR present an alternative explanation that explains the evidence at least as well as macroevolution AND is not contradicted by any of the evidence.
Saying Goddidit is NOT an alternative explanation that is of any use. Since that explains everything, it explains nothing. One must account for the evidence that can be observed and measured. Millions of observations by millions of people support the idea that macroevolution happens, whether you like it or not, and all you can do to try to refute is play rhetorical games instead of offering any logical or scientific arguments to counter it.
I call BULLSHIT on you, Synapse. BULLSHIT! You might be able to fool people who are not familiar with the evidence, or who don’t know how science works, but fortunately there are enough educated SANE people in the world that sooner or later someone will call you on your LIES as I just did.
Peace on you, and Merry Christmas. I wish you and yours the best, in spite of our disagreements. I hate the lies, but not the liar.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Here’s one of your lies, Synapse:
” its [evolution’s] theory really predicts constant, across-the-board chaos and disorder”
Where oh where does evolution predict that? Please cite some sources. That is quite obviously your INTERPRETATION of what evolution predicts, but it is so far off the truth that my mind is boggled by your saying this. Educate yourself please, or stop spreading your bullshit. Do you really think you’re honoring Christ by spreading LIES?
I am NOT an atheist, but Dawkins seems to have covered all the bases when he said those in denial of the fact of evolution must be either ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane (or some combination of the above).
Do you accept the fact that the earth goes around the sun instead of vice versa? If so, why? If so, then why are you so against accepting the fact that macroevolution happens, when there is at least as much evidence macroevolution happens as there is that the earth goes around the sun? Sounds like you might be full of PRIDE to me.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, I’ve studied evolution for more years than you can imagine, and have debated Ph.D.s and other scientists on this subject. I know every weak point in your beliefs and have refuted the less weak points completely to my satisfaction. I have concluded that your macroevolutionary theory is a failure, but hey, if you insist on believing in it, without questioning your authorities, what more can I say.
Okay, let’s just end this, then, since you have nothing of substance to offer….except insults and the proffer that gravity causes animals to jump higher. Ouch.
Do have a wonderful Christmas season, TBG. And may natural selection be with you ….
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
If as you claim you’ve studied evolution for many years, why then do you misrepresent it so? What were your sources of information? If they told you that evolution predicts chaos all the time, they were lying to you. If you thought that up all by yourself, you are wrong. I honestly can’t see where you get the idea that evolution predicts any such thing.
Evolution is based on the evidence of the world, many observations of many types of data by many people over many years. Evolution explains that data in a logical, consistent way, is supported by the data, and is not contradicted by it. it is one of the soundest scientific ideas known to man.
IF it were the way you present it, then of course it is ridiculous and wrong. BUT you are NOT describing it accurately, so you are either a liar or a fool, or both.
Nonetheless, Merry Christmas to you too.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
and you have nothing to offer but insults too
you insult my intelligence if you expect me to swallow the crap you spew when you misrepresent evolution so egegiously wrong.
you insult your own intelligence if you swallow that crap yourself.
you insult Christ by spreading lies about evolution while professing to be a Christian. Makes Christians and Christianity look stupid.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Seen the Segway chimp video? My dad nearly popped a disc laughing at this one when I showed it to the folks.
It has nothing to do with the arguments, but hey. Comic relief.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Although I could point out that it stands to reason a chimp could work one if we can. Can’t build one, but can use one. Hooray for apes!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Thanks 1minion. Humans are apes too you know. For some reason, some people don’t like to admit this.
All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.
Even if God poofed us into existence and we didn’t actually evolve, He created us AS apes. Every part of a human’s body matches that of a chimp’s, bone for bone, muscle for muscle, nerve for nerve.
God even put some endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes at the same places in human DNA as in chimp DNA. Why He would do that, AND plant a fossil record that clearly shows humans evolving from apes in several phases IF we didn’t actually evolve, is known only to Him.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
as to why people like Synapseaxion would LIE about the evidence of God’s creation, I really don’t understand that…those dang humans! [imagine church lady voice for the following] Could it be perhaps, oh I don’t know, maybe the work of … SATAN?
I call bullshit again on Synapse for claiming he has studied evolution many years and knows the subject. He might have studied it for many years. I question the veracity of his sources of information. He might even have debated Ph.D.’s about this subject. That doesn’t mean he knew what he was talking about when he debated them. Any village idiot can (and does) stand up anywhere and proclaim their ignorance for the world to see and hear. Based on how Synapseaxion presents evolution, which is a strawman caricature that does not accurately describe it, he is either a liar or a fool.
Nobody has to take my word for this, and I neither expect nor want anyone to take anything I say on faith. Check it out for yourselves. Regardless of the evidence, regardless of the INTERPRETATIONS of that evidence, compare and contrast what evolution actually does say to what Synapseaxion claims it says, note what he puts into his description and especically note what he leaves out, and you can see Synapseaxion is an asshole. A relatively polite asshole, but still an asshole.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapseaxion’s honesty is also in doubt here…
he claims he is NOT a fundie and bases his opinion only on his interpretation of the evidence. Several instances in our discussion here give strong clues that he is a troll, including the strawman caricatures of evolution such as the use of the word “morphing”, the apparent following of a script in the order and wording of questions he posed, his claiming expertise on the subject when he doesn’t accurately describe the scientific position, etc.
To repeat, I have no problems at all with the concept of intelligent design per se. The problem I have with the way it is presented now is that its main arguments seem to be similar in style of those of Synapseaxion, in other words, denying the reality that the evidence of the world clearly shows macroevolution happens.
Funny thing, he quoted Behe and yet Behe himself accepts both common descent and the age of the earth, so what’s the problem here?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I have a very insulting comment in moderation. This comment announcing that is the 4th this morning. The 1st, 3rd and 4th (this one) posted. At least I HOPE this one posts, or else maybe there’ll be a 5th comment announcing the 4th comment that announced that the 2nd comment hadn’t posted yet.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I think Synapseaxion, Kay and I can be in agreement that the evidence shows intelligent design even if we disagree about the fact macroevolution happens.
It amazes me that the physical universe has such properties for molecules to react the way they do, that from simple forms of life multicellular forms can develop, that descendants of earlier forms use what is available to them from their genetic legacy, adapting to new purposes sometimes body parts that had different uses in their ancestors, that humans clearly show evidence of their being descended from FISH (you sir, at one time had pharyngeal arches), etc.
To me, this demonstrates the glory of God, that he can take a handful of dust and using evolution as tool of creation, end up with humans. This opinion of mine is neither in conflict with the Bible nor with the findings of science. Kay and Synapse’s opinions are at least in conflict with science, and possibly with the Bible too if Genesis was not meant to be taken literally but is instead told to us as a parable.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Terry Pratchett said something like, it’s better to be a rising ape than a fallen angel. When you think of all, good or not so good, humans have accomplished, it’s quite remarkable, really. I think he also said we may as well worship lampposts because at least we know this is likely the only world that has them. Although maybe I misheard that. But humans, us lowly apes, built them all. Why not credit our own ingenuity?
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Sorry.. I hit submit before I put the video in:
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Google, wikipedia, youtube…these are awesome things we have nowadays. back when I was a kid, I had to walk seven miles through the snow uphill both ways to get stuff to learn from, and it was something you youngsters may have never heard of called “books.”
The nearly instantaneous access to vast amounts of information is incredible. We are truly in the “information age.” I also like that with cell phone cameras and such anyone anywhere can be a reporter and broadcast video with sound so others can see and hear what’s going on instead of having to rely solely on verbal descriptions. This is great for exposing corruption, fraud, human rights and environmental abuses. The potential is here for things to become much better for us.
Also, anyone with access to the internet can check out things such as the bullshit Synapseaxion spews, and can see for themselves that in spite of his claims that he knows the subject, he does a pisspoor job of accurately describing the scientific position, that in fact he presents a lopsided distorted very inaccurate portrayal of evolution thus showing that he is either a liar or a fool, or both.
Merry Christmas!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
My earlier comment from many hours ago is still in moderation, and may be declined because I do call Synapse an a-hole but with letters in place of the hyphen.
Another comment I just posted is also in moderation. This one here MIGHT go to moderation…I never know what will trigger one post to make it and another to be held.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Good video of Pratchett, 1minion
Hey he’s a fan of G.K. Chesterton (a staunch Christian). Me too! I have a page on my web site devoted to some of the many sayings attributed to G.K. Chesterton.
I actually had more comments about the Pratchett vid, including some direct quotations, but for some reason when I clicked to post it my browser went to some type of error page and when I went back to the previous page my post was gone. Maybe it was God’s will, perhaps a divine intervention? Who knows…
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG – me and e_e the only ones at this point cking the moderation cue and sometimes i let myself out to get some air esp. in the week-ends so your posts sit there for a while. i should get a keyboard cat, or better yet, a monkey! i don’t see where you called synapse an @#@#%##!?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
The Bicycling Guitarist whistles innocently.
Oh but say, hypothetically, if I did call synapse an @#@#%##!?, and I’m not saying I did, mind you, but hypothetically, what would happen to me or to that post? Just wondering, hypothetically that is.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
a keyboard cat or monkey lol
Reminds me of that SNL skit about bathroom monkey, monkeys you bought from the store in a kit that were trained (supposedly) to clean your bathroom. And you didn’t feed them or take care of them. Once they died, you’re supposed to throw them away and buy another one. LOL oh the satire is so spot on the consumerist society!
LikeLike
princessxxx said
well, i try to catch comments in moderation, too. i’m just not around the computer that often.
anyone know what happened to kay and obama the antichrist?
LikeLike
dorian said
christian retreat? sabbatical?
i miss them. come back to the mission, you two!!
that’s okay, P, i’m happy to do the moderation clicks. it’s really just a click, i hardly read them. nor do i censor anything. that would be unmerican. e_e is there too.
last friday i got free tickets to see cher. she was great. you would’ve loved it.
LikeLike
dorian said
certain cuss words automatically go to spam. not sure if a*****e is one of them, maybe not. only two have been banned from adkob. you have to be real angry trolls with the spam expletives and/or a real nut job to be banned. those types don’t stay around too long anyway…
LikeLike
princessxxx said
you bastard, you saw cher and didn’t invite me?
i’m the daughter cher never had.
guess what you guys, i decided to move to trinidad california
….as soon as winter is over.
LikeLike
dorian said
i almost didn’t go because i was lazy but hey, cher is cher, good actress/diva and singer and super cool and she ain’t celine dion. it was a good production. her fans were going crazy, especially the gay boys up front whooping it up!she’ll be around for a while.
trinidad should be nice, p, northern california is the best place in the u.s.a to live.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hey Dorian you didn’t call Princessxxx! Cher and Cher alike!
“…and she ain’t celine dion.” ’nuff said
I hope Kay and OTA come back. I miss them too. I can’t substitute for them. You two agree with my views for the most part.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Synapse on the other hand, I’m not so sure about…
Like I said, the wording of the questions, the way it almost seems like he is following a script, the egregiously wrong misrepresentation of evolution in spite of his claiming to know the subject, makes me question his integrity.
Sure, if it were the way he falsely portrays it, with a biased lopsided description that includes things that ain’t there and leaves out things that are, well sure if it WERE that way of course he’d be right and would “win” this debate as Kay puts it because I wouldn’t fight it. BUT it ain’t the way he portrays it, and for someone who claims to know the subject he is full of shit.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I totally agree about northern California being the best place in the world to live. I was born and raised in Solano County the first thirty-five years of my life, then Sonoma County next ten years.
California has mountains, deserts, seashores, the tallest trees, small towns, big cities, whatever you want. I don’t like southern California. It is so different with such different needs and priorities and culture that it really should be a separate state. Oh well…
The climate where I grew up rocks. Mediterranean Dry Summer is wonderful weather for Bicycling Guitarists. It is one of the if not THE most desirable climate for humans. Only about two percent of the world’s land area has this climate, yet it holds about twenty percent of the world’s population.
LikeLike
dorian said
TBG, i wouldn’t fight it if they made california two states. i say draw the line after bakersfield.
oh i knew princess would pout because i didn’t take her to see cher. i wasn’t sure i’d cher the info. just had to because people should know she really puts on a good show. she’s won an oscar, a grammy, an emmy, golden globes…what did celine dion do? the titanic song. maybe cher will be the next queen of las vegas.
see ‘tea with musollini’ if you haven’t yet.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I’m still here.. it’s hard to stay away for too long..
P, you trator… how could you leave us? I don’t blame you though and I’m extremely jealous.. I have a friend who moved here from Sonoma county a few years ago… she made me fall in love with that part of the country.
Synapseaxion, if you’re still reading… I really enjoyed your debate with TBG. I thought you did an excellent job. I wish the debate hadn’t ended so soon but it did cease to be a debate and I don’t blame you for not wanting to waste your time any longer.
I read that you agreed with me that we shouldn’t put limitations on God. If anything is clear it is that He has no limitations. Could you tell me what your view is on Creationism? Are you a “New Earth” or “old Earth” believer? Do you believe that we evolved from other species?
I was doing some research and came across some pictures that put a “stumbling block” in my path.. I say “stumbling block” but certainly not a “road block”. These pictures were of a newborn human with a formed tail.. of course this was on (via) the talkorgins site.
I’m very uneducated on this subject and this question will most likely prove that.. but what about interspecies breeding as an answer as to why there are what seem to be ape/human fossils (and tails)?
LikeLike
kay~ms said
Cher is an amazing actress… she comes across as ditzy but she is extremely intelligent. Much like Farah.. she was also very intelligent and a very gifted actress.
And I agree that Celine is annoying but she does have an amazing voice… I love her version of “O Holy Night”… well, actually, I love everyone’s version of that song, I LOVE that song, it is my favorite Christmas song.
LikeLike
dorian said
i have a tail, kay.;)
i’m sure TBG has an answer to your tail question.
sonoma county is very beautiful. my brother lives there on week-ends. that’s one place i’d like to retire in. people are very nice and neighbors help each other out.
you gonna do this, kay? holiday meme c’mon now
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
KAY! hooray!
Celine does have an amazing voice. I’ve heard bad things about her maybe being not so nice a person, but her singing has brought much joy to the world.
I greatly appreciate your input and honesty on the subject of human origins. I know you might not want any advice from me, but seriously, synapseaxion is NOT describing evolution accurately. Sure he may have studied it more years than I can imagine, but apparently from biased one-sided sources since that is the way he misrepresents this subject. Sure he may have debated Ph.D.s about this subject. That doesn’t mean he knows anything about the subject.
I agree with you Kay that God created the universe and humans. I will not agree with synapse that the evidence does not clearly indicate macroevolution happens, because that is something anyone can check for themselves and I have.
God Bless You and yours and Merry Christmas!
Hey I was in Cloverdale, California (in Sonoma County) from 1995 to 2006, and attended Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park from 1999-2004. Maybe your friend saw me riding or playing sometime?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
To answer Kay’s “stumbling block” I will cut and paste something from post #116 of this thread:
It amazes me that the physical universe has such properties for molecules to react the way they do, that from simple forms of life multicellular forms can develop, that descendants of earlier forms use what is available to them from their genetic legacy, adapting to new purposes sometimes body parts that had different uses in their ancestors, that humans clearly show evidence of their being descended from FISH (you sir, at one time had pharyngeal arches), etc.
To me, this demonstrates the glory of God, that he can take a handful of dust and using evolution as tool of creation, end up with humans.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
TBG, first, Merry Christmas and God’s blessings to you and your’s also.
My friend is from Petaluma… the next time I talk to her, I’ll ask if she has ever seen the Bicycling Guitarist.
I really don’t want to get back into this evolution debate with you but I do respect your knowledge on this subject. Do you think interspecies breeding could account for some of the fossil evidence?
LikeLike
princessxxx said
trinidad is in humbolt county,
i here it’s near a college town, and the pacific ocean, cliffs, redwood forest. mountain springs. art community.
the best part, since i have AIDS i can get a 251 card and grow my own high quality weed, legally.
i’m going to live in a shack in the woods and hide from everyone.
i say that because i just came from walmart, what a nitemare.
i have no idea what creature these people evolved from,
but trust me,
no intelligence involved in the making, just random chaos.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Kay, I don’t really think much if any of the fossil evidence is from interspecies breeding. As for your stumbling block, the humans born with tails are probably examples of some genes being expressed from our ancestors that are normally not expressed even if the genes are still carried along as baggage from our evolutionary past.
A short AND accurate summary of evolution follows, cut and pasted from post #100 of this thread:
Evolution predicts that populations of organisms either adapt to their environment by shifts in the relative frequencies of alleles being expressed in response to stresses from that environment, OR they perish.
This is what is predicted by evolution. This is also what is observed in the real world. This is what the evidence of the world suggests, and evolution explains that evidence neatly.
We do not as yet and possibly, even probably NEVER WILL understand every detail of every change to every individual of every generation of every species that has ever existed, but that is the level of “proof” some creationists seem to be looking for.
LikeLike
1minionsopinion said
Apropos of just about nothing: TBG @ 132 said —
“California has mountains, deserts, seashores, the tallest trees, small towns, big cities, whatever you want. I don’t like southern California. It is so different with such different needs and priorities and culture that it really should be a separate state. Oh well…”
—–
I’ve heard an argument somewhere, that it would have made a lot more sense to divide North America by longitude rather than latitude – A country with coasts and mountains, and country that was mostly prairie, and a country that was mostly forest and lake and whatever else constitutes the eastern seaboard. But then Saskatchewan would be in the same country as Kansas and Texas. Oh hell, no. You lot can have ’em!
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
1minion says “it would have made a lot more sense to divide North America by longitude rather than latitude”
SPLITTER!
(this is a lot funnier if you’ve seen the Monty Python movie The Life of Brian)
I’m more into loungitude and lassitude myself.
LikeLike
Enkill_Eridos said
@Kay, for inter-species breeding there has to be a certain percentage of difference in genetic material. Which is how mankind actually made dogs. They took different Canine species and bred them together. This created the domesticated dog. Since we have many different breeds of dogs from inter-species breeding, it is a possibility. It very may be possible that some primates are capable of producing offspring with humans…Not sure why someone would try, think, or even attempt such a stupid thing. But in genetics, a fox and another canine species could breed and there you have a dog. That is just an example, but because every animal in the Canine species has a genetic common ancestor, this can happen. Look at primates (the species that the humans are in.) I mean there is a relatively small difference between our genes and other primates. All primates have the ability to make tools, communicate, and be able to problem solve using reasoning. Several studies in zoos across the world have come to this conclusion. KoKo the Gorilla was taught how to communicate using sign language. She also demonstrated the ability to solve complex problems correctly. Chimps, Orangutans, Baboons, and the other various primate species are known to do all of these things. Baboons will use tools like make-shift shivs to defend their territories. (And if they are labeled as “pets” the hairless primate that are cohabitants their territory.) Humans tend to underestimate animals. We know now that at least primates are able to reason and know the difference of right and wrong. They also show remorse when they do something wrong, and joy when they do something right. I mean they have a lot of shared qualities. So it is possible of inter-species fossils, but unlikely. As many humans are born with a “tail” or evidence a tail was forming. These deformities are usually removed and disposed of. I was born in such a case. As far as I know there was no inter-species mating in that instance. But I still have a spot that either a tail tried to form or the nub of a tail like appendage was removed at birth. We (Humans) share a common genetic ancestor with the other primates. Our civilization is more advanced technlogically, but fundamentally other primates have very similar social patterns as we do.
LikeLike
kay~ms said
I found this interesting National Geographic article…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html
LikeLike
kay said
I have a comment in moderation on the other post.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
going to check the link. thanks for sharing Kay.
One thing to note before I even look is that National Geographic is NOT a science journal. It is a magazine made for the general public.
About the idea of interspecies breeding somehow accounting for the transitional forms between apes and humans in the fossil record though, it is even more important to remember that there aren’t any fossils that look anything like modern humans more than a couple hundred thousand years old, so the idea of the transitional forms from millions of years ago being hybrids of modern humans and apes is not supported by the fossil record.
What is more likely is that those transitional forms are just that, species that are either our direct ancestors or at the very least close cousins to our direct ancestors, that show the progression from apes to humans over the past six million years or so.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Things are not as simple as some people would like them to be. I still stand by my opinion that most of the transitional fossils between apes and humans are not the result of interspecies breeding IF one insists that one of the species involved are MODERN humans.
Funny you should bring this up Kay, because there is evidence from the DNA of humans and chimps that there was some interbreeding for about a million years after the initial split between humans and chimps. Google David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston for more details. He published his results in Nature in 2006 I think.
Apparently, the lines of descent of what would become humans and chimps first split off from a common ancestor about seven million years ago, but based on genetic evidence there was some hanky panky still going on between proto-humans and proto-chimps (in the line of descent leading to humans at least) for about a million years after that, until about five million years ago. Since then, the lines have been distinct.
So yes, some interbreeding almost certainly occurred especially early on. Remember that populations evolve, not individuals. Those early proto-humans weren’t that different from their proto-chimp cousins. We have evolved in different directions since then. Supposedly there were attempts by some crazy Russian scientist in the 20th century to breed chimpanzees and humans together. I do not know the results, but I think I may have met them (just kidding about that last remark, maybe!)
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Another thing that goes against some people’s understanding of evolution is that since the human – chimpanzee split from a common ancestor, chimp DNA has undergone more changes than human DNA has. In other words, chimps are MORE evolved than humans!
Small changes in the DNA can sometimes result in very big changes to the organism. So even if human DNA hasn’t evolved as much as chimp DNA since the split, obviously what changes there were are significant ones. God’s hand shaping our destiny, creating us.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I can imagine some creationists being even MORE upset by these findings: that not only are we descended from monkeys but our ancestors continued having wild monkey sex with their monkey cousins for a million years after first heading towards humanhood, and that even though humans evolved from monkeys some of our monkey cousins are MORE evolved than we are!
I think the biggest obstacle to people accepting this as fact has nothing to do with the evidence nor its interpretation. Face it, the biggest problem most people have with this is pride, one of the seven deadly sins.
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
hello again, fellow travelers! My internet is back up and running, and I just got through reading through your interesting posts. However, I’ve got to head out the door now, so won’t be able to respond until later today, or maybe tonight.
Hang onto sanity until then, dear gentlefolk 🙂
LikeLike
princessxxx said
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
Hi Synapseaxion and welcome back. Please do go back to all my replies since your next-to-last post.
For someone who claims to know this subject, you sure do put up strawmen when describing the scientific position. I’m interested to see what you come up with to defend the way you misrepresent evolution. I stand by my call of “Bullshit” on your earlier posts.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
If it’s any help, a key thing to remember is that individuals don’t evolve, populations do. For me at least, remembering that makes it much easier to understand how evolution works.
Here are my words describing the scientific position:
Evolution predicts that populations of organisms either adapt to their environment by shifts in the relative frequencies of alleles being expressed in response to stresses from that environment, OR they perish.
This is what is predicted by evolution. This is also what is observed in the real world. This is what the evidence of the world suggests, and evolution explains that evidence neatly.
We do not as yet and possibly, even probably NEVER WILL understand every detail of every change to every individual of every generation of every species that has ever existed, but that is the level of “proof” some creationists seem to be looking for.
**********************************
And Kay, if I understood your most recent question properly, I *think* you’re asking if the transitional ape-human fossils are possibly hybrids of MODERN humans with apes. I don’t think that’s likely, because these transitional forms are millions of years older than the oldest known fossils of anatomically modern humans, and also because these transitional fossils show a clear progression from more ape-like to more human-like features over time, just what would be expected if macroevolution happens.
And of course the fossils are not only in the rocks, we carry fossils in our genes too, hence the occasional human being born with a tail from our ancestors. And as for proof of macroevolution, the pseudogenes such as the broken one for synthesizing Vitamin C that is at the same place in human and chimp DNA, the endogenous retroviruses same places, and that smoking gun from the Kitzmiller trial, human chromosome 2 that shows clear evidence of being two ape chromosomes fused together. Like I said, for anyone who studies THE EVIDENCE macroevolution is as obvious as the earth not being flat.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
the link i provided above is pretty much exactly what you are talking about.
with the added bonus of being explained by a transgendered person.
she tells you how you are related to a butterfly.
and all the hermaphrodites that occur in nature.
move the “debate” over there and start another 150 + comments. por favor.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oops..sorry
should have posted my last two entries at the new location…
arrrggghhh.
LikeLike
princessxxx said
you, too Syn Apes,
kay, your invited as well,
LikeLike
princessxxx said
dorian,
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
TBG, unless you retract some of your accusations, there is no point in continuing this discussion, because it will mean that you are not communicating with me but with some strawman out there, and that will be a waste of all of our time.
You need to retract that I said that I was not a fundie. Please quote where I said that.
You also need to retract that I quoted Behe. I did not.
I don’t care what you call me or what your opinion is of me, but if we are going to proceed in an honest manner, you need to stick to facts. The above two comments of yours are not facts.
Also, I never said that evolutionists say that selected random mutations will lead to chaos. They will never admit that. But if you examine the mechanism proposed for macroevolution to happen, then chaos, disorder and confusion is always the result of random activity. That is a scientific fact.
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
I thought you indicated that while you are a christian creationist, and you did make that clear early on, that you also indicated at least indirectly based on one of your responses that you weren’t a fundie. My apologies for misunderstanding you. Now that it’s clear that you ARE a fundie, your source of confusion regarding this subject is easier for me to understand, and also I retract the insults hurled when I thought you were sailing under false colors so to speak.
In post 76 of the previous thread of this debate (the obama one), you said: “Have you read the transcripts of the Kitzmiller versus Dover trial? Maybe not, or you would not say that the creationists had literally nothing to show as proof (science does not deal in proofs, by the way).” Again, my bad for misunderstanding you but as I read those transcripts Behe WAS the star witness for the defence, and his testimony backfired against their cause when the truth came out that to redefine science according to creationist standards would mean giving astrology the same degree of credibility as astronomy.
In your last message you say: “But if you examine the mechanism proposed for macroevolution to happen, then chaos, disorder and confusion is always the result of random activity. That is a scientific fact.”
This proves my point that you do NOT understand the mechanisms of evolution. Funny that you say that your ignorant assertion is something evolutionists will never “admit.” Of course not, since those who accept the FACT of evolution generally deal in TRUTH.
Educate yourself please before dumbing down the world any further, m’kay?
LikeLike
The Bicycling Guitarist said
oh and by the way, we’re supposed to move over to the new thread, assuming you want to continue.
You demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the evidence is, and your being a fundie means you are NOT open to what it indicates if it conflicts with your INTERPRETATION of the Bible.
A scientist has an open mind and heart to TRUTH. A fundie creationist pigeon starts with the conclusion, ignores or distorts any evidence that contradicts that conclusion, then knocks over the chess pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to declare victory.
You sir are wrong, about this subject, and your blinders of faith are so thick you can’t even see you are wrong. It isn’t a matter of differing interpretations of the evidence, because the evidence is so overwhelming that basically only a blithering idiot actually be aware of the evidence and still deny the reality that macroevolution happens.
How do YOU explain the fossils in the rocks showing a clear progression over time from more ape-like to more human-like forms? How do YOU explain the fossils in the genes such as the pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses at the same place in our DNA as in chimp DNA. You seemed to indicate you read the transcripts of the Dover trial. What about Ken Miller’s testimony about human chromosome 2, practically a smoking gun in terms of evidence for macroevolution. And while the following was just a little too late to be presented at that trial, it is still stunning evidence for macroevolution: What about Tiktaalik?
LikeLike
Synapseaxion said
you still have it wrong, TBG. Neither did I say I was a fundie. I asked what was the definition of “fundie” so I could know whether to accept the title or reject it. It was maybe e_e or Dorian, I forget which one now, who defined fundie as a Taliban type person, prepared to kill for their beliefs et cetera. If that is your definition of a fundie, then I reject that position. Maybe you can give me your definition of “fundie” so I can know whether to embrace the title as mine or not?
As to the mechanism for evolution, I thought this was the definition: The change of alleles over time via rare, random, beneficial mutations selected for. If this is not the mechanism of evolution, then I await your correction. But as long as random and chance activity is part of the process, the normal result should be lack of organization and disorder. Isn’t it a scientific fact that random, chance activity does not produce order?
Okay, I’ll head over to the new site with a copy and paste of this post.
LikeLike
http://uncdentalfacultypractice.com said
Superb blog you have here but I was curious if
you knew of any user discussion forums that cover the same topics talked
about here? I’d really like to be a part of online community where I can get comments from
other knowledgeable people that share the same interest.
If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
Thanks!
LikeLike