Unprovable Atheistic Evolutionary Notions

[pahl]

Atheism, defined as: "There is no God," is an (unprovable) faith. A negative cannot be proven. Atheism is a negative. Therefore atheism, as defined above, is unprovable. Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith,

I am trying to answer that argument here:

Is not "There is no pink unicorns" just as much a faith as "There is no God"? If that is true, then does it matter if atheism can be called a faith?

The only thing you are saying is that nothing can be proven not to exist with absolute certainty. Does not believing in one of all of the infinite possibilities of existences constitute a faith? Yes, a faith in what we know and what we can prove.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: KillerArgument Dear Kuroko, There is no "proof" of evolution--none. Evolution is a concept, a theory, a faith.

Dude, you're trolling. Stop.

Observed Instances of Speciation

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.


5.1.1 Plants
(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.

5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy


5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

The list goes on.

The only people making the claim "evolution has no evidence" are fundamentalist theists who argue with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut very tightly.

[harami]

Random comments after reading a number of posts.

Micro-evolution, aka genetic drift is well known and observable. It supports, but does not prove, the major tenets of evolution theory, some of which are: the creation of new species (especially those morphologically radically different from others), the beginning of life, and the possibility of 6 billion years or so as being sufficient to allow for the development of life as we now know it.

Evolution theory, like astronomy, is not a laboratory science. Both depend on inferences from traces ancient events. Both are subject to radical revisions once new conjectures or evidence arise.

Intelligent Design (in its probabilistic statements) is a valid criticism of evolution theory. Even if you don't believe in Intelligent Design, the criticisms need to be addressed by the evolutionists. If you are a true scientist, you must address the defects in your theory. You cannot just beat your breast and say "off with you, God does not exist, you creationist imbecile" and really expect to have won your argument.

Atheists seem to justify their position by showing the contradictions in various religions, or deriding them as being silly. They spend a lot of energy and passion on this. Why is it so important to them that God does not exist? It seems to me that the fervor in denying God's existence is the same as that of a religion, even though they claim atheism not to be a religion. Is it possible that all the various religions tell us just a little about the nature of God, and that none has the whole story?

Some people seem to think that the belief in God precludes good science. This is quite clearly not true. From Newton to 1950 (say), many scientist believed that they were trying to discover the laws God put in place when He designed the universe. That is clearly an enticement to research. To believe that the universe is random (which is the basis of evolutionary theory) would lead to the belief that there are really no laws to be discovered, just various accidents of randomness, mixed with the "survival of the fittest".

Since I hang around scientists, I can assure you that many of them will go to the wall vehemently defending their pet theory, and can be quite illogical and destructive of those who criticize. So much for the dispassion of science. Someone once said: "a real scientist will work hard to disprove their theory". To me this is the essence of science. You want to know to what extent your theory is applicable to the real world, if at all. For example, Newton's laws do not cover all motion, but we know their limitations quite well now.

[Jack]

Why is it so important to them that God does not exist?

Speaking for the one atheist I know best (me), what's important is to get people over this notion of god. The idea of god has resulted in numerous wars, acts of genocide, infanticide and homicide, all in the name of gods. Countries are divided, families are divided, all over this concept of god.

The negative things done to humanity in the name of gods far outweigh the positive. The concept of gods is a real and present danger to the future of mankind and the planet.

Does all that give me a valid reason to be concerned that people still believe in gods and want to see it end?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: harami Intelligent Design (in its probabilistic statements) is a valid criticism of evolution theory. Even if you don't believe in Intelligent Design, the criticisms need to be addressed by the evolutionists. If you are a true scientist, you must address the defects in your theory. You cannot just beat your breast and say "off with you, God does not exist, you creationist imbecile" and really expect to have won your argument.

Sometimes, that's exactly what the creationists need to hear. We can both agree that ID offers no constructive or positive evidence in any way and only serves to legitimize "goddidit" reasoning. If ID supporters were only interested in showing evolution supporters where their arguments need more work, I wouldn't have a problem with. Time and again, ID has proven to be propaganda-laden with a clear doctrinal ax to grind.

Evolutionists have other arguments beyond beating their chest. ID supporters do not.

Atheists seem to justify their position by showing the contradictions in various religions, or deriding them as being silly. They spend a lot of energy and passion on this. Why is it so important to them that God does not exist? It seems to me that the fervor in denying God's existence is the same as that of a religion, even though they claim atheism not to be a religion. Is it possible that all the various religions tell us just a little about the nature of God, and that none has the whole story?

As an atheist:

I cannot hold public office due to lack of popularity in many places and due to actual legislation in many others.

I live only a few centuries removed from an era where atheists were routinely MURDERED by Christians and other theists. Murder is the "legal" mandate for atheism in many Islamic countries.

Religion and the belief in god is a type of propaganda which can be used to influence individuals to do things they wouldn't otherwise do... like vote for people who will shaft them (conservative Christians) or blow themselves up (in the case of Islam).

Any benefit from religion can be gained through secular channels.

My question for theists is why, in the age of the internet, are you subjecting yourself to intellectual enslavement to bronze age balderdash?

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: harami Random comments after reading a number of posts. Micro-evolution, aka genetic drift is well known and observable. It supports, but does not prove, the major tenets of evolution theory, some of which are: the creation of new species (especially those morphologically radically different from others), the beginning of life, and the possibility of 6 billion years or so as being sufficient to allow for the development of life as we now know it. Evolution theory, like astronomy, is not a laboratory science. Both depend on inferences from traces ancient events. Both are subject to radical revisions once new conjectures or evidence arise. Intelligent Design (in its probabilistic statements) is a valid criticism of evolution theory. Even if you don't believe in Intelligent Design, the criticisms need to be addressed by the evolutionists. If you are a true scientist, you must address the defects in your theory. You cannot just beat your breast and say "off with you, God does not exist, you creationist imbecile" and really expect to have won your argument. Atheists seem to justify their position by showing the contradictions in various religions, or deriding them as being silly. They spend a lot of energy and passion on this. Why is it so important to them that God does not exist? It seems to me that the fervor in denying God's existence is the same as that of a religion, even though they claim atheism not to be a religion. Is it possible that all the various religions tell us just a little about the nature of God, and that none has the whole story? Some people seem to think that the belief in God precludes good science. This is quite clearly not true. From Newton to 1950 (say), many scientist believed that they were trying to discover the laws God put in place when He designed the universe. That is clearly an enticement to research. To believe that the universe is random (which is the basis of evolutionary theory) would lead to the belief that there are really no laws to be discovered, just various accidents of randomness, mixed with the "survival of the fittest". Since I hang around scientists, I can assure you that many of them will go to the wall vehemently defending their pet theory, and can be quite illogical and destructive of those who criticize. So much for the dispassion of science. Someone once said: "a real scientist will work hard to disprove their theory". To me this is the essence of science. You want to know to what extent your theory is applicable to the real world, if at all. For example, Newton's laws do not cover all motion, but we know their limitations quite well now.

Dear Harami,

Thanks for the most intelligent post in a long time.

I don't think that all religions tell us a little about God, because many of them contradict.

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Now, how about addressing my arguments?

It would be far more interesting if you made an argument. I haven't seen anything approaching coherance thus far. Perhasp you should start over and try again.

[pikatore]

Quote by: KillerArgument I never attempted here to disprove atheism (though I do feel it is false and foolish). I merely proved conclusively and absolutely that strong atheism is a FAITH. And no one has even attempted to refute this fact.

A faith places a belief in an idea that has NO conclusive evidence to support it, hence religions, which are based on faith.

Atheism, be it weak or strong, draws conclusions from logical reasoning and rationalisation (and physical evidence, note down further). Therefore, if it is a faith, then my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a faith. Your belief that in five seconds, the earth won't spontaneously combust is a faith. So, yes, by your general definition, atheism is a faith. A faith in what, you might ask? Reality.

Quote by: KillerArgument I think it IS a valid proposition. If you go back to the Big Bang, obviously, there was no life present then, so logically, yes, life DID have a beginning, even from an evolutionary point of view. And abiogenesis is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Atheistic evolutionists place their FAITH in the SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

That claim, I'm afraid to say, is untrue. Abiogenesis IS possible, and if you look at the timespans involved here, it is a likely candidate.

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

Here is a whole library of info on it you may not have been aware of.

Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an experiment that shows that organic matter can be synthesised from non-organic matter under the conditions the Earth should have been under back then.

Quote by: KillerArgument This is the killer argument because it forces atheistic evolutionists onto a level playing field with other people of faith. Atheism is no more "rational" than Christianity. Atheists do not have a corner on the market for rationality. They cannot patent it.

Atheism is a more rational than Christianity. The atheists don't run around with a book that dictates everything they should believe, and they (usually) don't believe in supernatural things such as walking on water, splitting seas, and the rising of the dead. So yes, they are more rational.

Quote by: KillerArgument Believers in evolutionistic origins (abiogenesis, life from non-life, spontaneous generation) can also no longer say that they don't believe in the scientifically impossible:: *miracles*.

A null point as well, read above.

Quote by: KillerArgument I proved the points I set out to prove when I started this thread, and no one has refuted these points.

As I have shown, you have proven nothing, just made false claims.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: RickSp It would be far more interesting if you made an argument. I haven't seen anything approaching coherance thus far. Perhasp you should start over and try again.

Perhasp I have won the argument and you know it. I made two logical threee-point arguments and in proper debate form. I haven't seen anything intelligent come from you. Perhasp you don't know what you're talking about.

RickSp (Sp=spelling?)

coherance > "coherence"

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: pikatore A faith places a belief in an idea that has NO conclusive evidence to support it, hence religions, which are based on faith. Atheism, be it weak or strong, draws conclusions from logical reasoning and rationalisation (and physical evidence, note down further). Therefore, if it is a faith, then my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a faith. Your belief that in five seconds, the earth won't spontaneously combust is a faith. So, yes, by your general definition, atheism is a faith. A faith in what, you might ask? Reality. That claim, I'm afraid to say, is untrue. Abiogenesis IS possible, and if you look at the timespans involved here, it is a likely candidate. Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life Here is a whole library of info on it you may not have been aware of. Miller-Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an experiment that shows that organic matter can be synthesised from non-organic matter under the conditions the Earth should have been under back then. Atheism is a more rational than Christianity. The atheists don't run around with a book that dictates everything they should believe, and they (usually) don't believe in supernatural things such as walking on water, splitting seas, and the rising of the dead. So yes, they are more rational. A null point as well, read above. As I have shown, you have proven nothing, just made false claims.

I think you know that you have proven nothing, you've just made false claims.

But how did you you get to be this smart and intelligent and educated? Oh, how I wish I could be as good as all of you.

[Jack]

I think you know that you have proven nothing, you've just made false claims.

Then debate their points, don't just offer an unsupported personal opinion. At least pickatore provided sources to support their statement. We've offered numerous points that contradict your opening post.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Zhavric Sometimes, that's exactly what the creationists need to hear. We can both agree that ID offers no constructive or positive evidence in any way and only serves to legitimize "goddidit" reasoning. If ID supporters were only interested in showing evolution supporters where their arguments need more work, I wouldn't have a problem with. Time and again, ID has proven to be propaganda-laden with a clear doctrinal ax to grind. Evolutionists have other arguments beyond beating their chest. ID supporters do not. As an atheist: I cannot hold public office due to lack of popularity in many places and due to actual legislation in many others. I live only a few centuries removed from an era where atheists were routinely MURDERED by Christians and other theists. Murder is the "legal" mandate for atheism in many Islamic countries. Religion and the belief in god is a type of propaganda which can be used to influence individuals to do things they wouldn't otherwise do... like vote for people who will shaft them (conservative Christians) or blow themselves up (in the case of Islam).

Christians are not the same as violent Islamic terrorists.

Any benefit from religion can be gained through secular channels.

Secular channels can't forgive your sins.

My question for theists is why, in the age of the internet, are you subjecting yourself to intellectual enslavement to bronze age balderdash?

Truth is eternal.

[RickSp]

Quote by: KillerArgument Perhasp I have won the argument and you know it. I made two logical threee-point arguments and in proper debate form. I haven't seen anything intelligent come from you. Perhasp you don't know what you're talking about.

Well at least you are amusing. If you consider that foolishness of yours to be argument, well whatever.... I am still chuckling over your :

Atheism .... is an (unprovable) faith. ... Atheism, of itself, is not necessarily any more rational than any other faith,

Atheism is not faith and faith is not rational. Other than that.....

And perhaps you should learn to spell perhaps.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: Isherwood Then debate their points, don't just offer an unsupported personal opinion. At least pickatore provided sources to support their statement. We've offered numerous points that contradict your opening post.

Can any "supporting evidence" overcome the airtight logic of a true philosophical argument?

Anyone can "contradict." "Refute" is what no one can do to my opening statements.

[Lullaby Chainer]

This is insane.

May I suggest we ignore this kid once and for all? There's no helping him. He's just too deeply rooted by his preacher and there's nothing we can do to help at this point.

He came here with horrible, horrible, illogical, nonsensical, degrading, pathetic, and sickeningly traditional Christian copy-paste preaching OPINIONS presented as "arguments".

As soon as he realized that his preaching just doesn't cut it in any respectable debate outside his bubble protected churchy environment.. he began to crack and lose all sanity as the God warrior that he is. He simply doesn't have it in him to think rationally and respond to logical rebuttals. He's been spoon fed mushy inconsistent Christian crap straight from the fundamentalist's mouth and now he facing a most peculiar concept.. people who don't shout Amen! Thankya Jesus! to the mind numbing fragile preaching that DOES NOT belong in a debate site. Even the theists here can see that Killer's lost his mind to the divine aspect of godly unshakable truth that need not be backed up or supported in any way.

I for one am sick of his charade. You may all do him a favor and crack his deeply rooted ways.. but I personally think we should just ignore him. He's not even a troll.. he's just confused and misguided. He's a disgrace to Christian debaters.. enough said.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: pahl I am trying to answer that argument here: The only thing you are saying is that nothing can be proven not to exist with absolute certainty. Does not believing in one of all of the infinite possibilities of existences constitute a faith? Yes, a faith in what we know and what we can prove.

Close. What I am saying is that GOD cannot be proven not to exist AT ALL.

God is different than a pink unicorn in that He is the Creator.

What you can "prove" by definition is not faith.

[pahl]

What you can "prove" by definition is not faith.

Precisely, so a "faith in what can be proven" is a contradiction. Because proof is not a matter of faith. Atheists probably have a lot of "basic" faiths, faith in that we exist, faith in other people. But a religious faith is something an atheist lacks, hence the term atheist.

[KillerArgument]

Quote by: pahl Precisely, so a "faith in what can be proven" is a contradiction. Because proof is not a matter of faith. Atheists probably have a lot of "basic" faiths, faith in that we exist, faith in other people. But a religious faith is something an atheist lacks, hence the term atheist.

Proof is not a matter of faith. So you're not sure you exist?

~~~

"Strong atheism" is a faith precisely and only because it asserts belief in the unprovable statement: "There is no God."

Evolutional origins are objects of faith because people believe, without evidence, and in contradiction to all scientific experiments, that life arose from non-life.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: KillerArgument Proof is not a matter of faith. So you're not sure you exist? ~~~ "Strong atheism" is a faith precisely and only because it asserts belief in the unprovable statement: "There is no God." Evolutional origins are objects of faith because people believe, without evidence, and in contradiction to all scientific experiments, that life arose from non-life.

Don't feed the troll. He's been doing this forever.. ignore him.