Evangelical war on evolution

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z There is no valid alternative to explain how we got here and it's absurd to acknowledge evolution and 180 to imply humans didn't evolve.

You clearly misunderstood.

Evolution has gone beyond theory.
Human evolution is not proven.

I never implied humans didn't evolve. I gave references that show that it is still unknown.

Quote by: Z When reworded

The rewording is pointless. Stick with what I actually wrote.

The point which you are missing is that human evolution is still a very big unknown, both the evolution of our bodies and our intelligence.

Currently, it is just as probable that we are the result of deliberate genetic alteration as it is that we are nothing but the result of a few extreme mutations.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai I never implied humans didn't evolve. I gave references that show that it is still unknown.

Incomplete.

We know we're living creatures with DNA. We know living creatures with DNA evolve. We have no other evidenced hypothesis for how we came to exist. Ergo, evolution is the only credible explanation. If you have evidence of something else, please present it.

The rewording is pointless. Stick with what I actually wrote.

The re-wording was 100% accurate and clearly illustrated the validity of my stance. It's why you shyed away from it in the rest of your post.

The point which you are missing is that human evolution is still a very big unknown, both the evolution of our bodies and our intelligence.

The mechanism is understood. As we learn more about the specifics, I predict they'll support human evolution.

Currently, it is just as probable that we are the result of deliberate genetic alteration as it is that we are nothing but the result of a few extreme mutations.

Of course it's not "just as probable". We understand the mechanism of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. These three things are observable and evidenced. We have no evidence supporting "deliberate genetic alteration" on human beings. What deliberately altered us? The FSM?

Things that have no evidence are not "just as probable" as things which do have evidence, Fonceai.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z Ergo, evolution is the only credible explanation.

You do realize that you are basically stating that you believe something that has no conclusive evidence?

Quote by: Z The re-wording was 100% accurate and clearly illustrated the validity of my stance. It's why you shyed away from it in the rest of your post.

It's a cowardly evasive tactic you used to avoid addressing a statement. Address it as is.

Quote by: Z Of course it's not "just as probable". We understand the mechanism of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. These three things are observable and evidenced. We have no evidence supporting "deliberate genetic alteration" on human beings.

That wasn't the point. The point is that genetic alteration of human beings is possible.

Quote by: Z Things that have no evidence are not "just as probable" as things which do have evidence,

Here we go again.

Cite me evidence of human evolution.

Or address why it's not universally agreed that humans evolved from something else.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai Cite me evidence of human evolution.

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

Fossil Hominids - The Evidence for Human Evolution

Mitochondrial DNA Clarifies Human Evolution

Humans As a Case Study for the Evidence of Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai One... overlapping doesn't contradict everything. The overlapping, by its very nature, prevents contradiction.

But it isn't an answer. Proposing magic instead of "I don't know" doesn't answer anything. And when an answer is found, what does that do to that magical being.

Quote by: Fonceai Two... evolution through random mutation and natural selection has been proven.

No it hasn't. Events that are well explained by evolutionary theory is not proof. Science doesn't prove.

Quote by: Fonceai It has absolutely not been proven that humans evolved.

But the fact that humans have evolved by the various mechanisms of evolution is as secure as any other fact of science. It's really quite clear. Given that two people can only carry 4 alleles for any given gene, without evolution the 14 allele per gene average in the human genome would be impossible. But that is quite nicely explained by evolutionary theory. Some genes have many, many known alleles than the average of 14.

Quote by: Fonceai Still theories.

Of course they are still theories and they will remain so until disproven. In science, theory is as good as it gets. "It's only a theory" is a typical taunt from scientific illiterates who think that science proves things and they become facts or laws. Thus, gravity is in doubt because it's only a theory. There also atomic theory and, nuclear theory. There are theories of light and magnetism and on and on.

Quote by: Fonceai Your repetition of "contradicting evidence" is nonsense. Why is it when an explanation is solely natural you agree with it, but when it involves something beyond our natural understanding (supernatural) you call it god of gaps?

Because injection of magic into the gaps in our knowledge to explain natural events is unnecessary. The only purpose it can serve is to shut off inquiry.

I'm surprised to find out that you think that scientific theories are wild guesses.

[Fonceai]

@RickSp

Those are great links.

After reading them, though, the one thing they all propose are theories of origin that are not conclusive.

That's my point... that the evolution of humans from "lower" creatures is still not proven. If it were, why would there still be so much research going on?

@gallo

A summary response would be two things...

When I write "human evolution" I'm writing about human origins and not our gradual evolution.

The second is that I absolutely do not think theories are wild guesses. I think they are "best" guesses.

Notice that I'm not invalidating theories of evolution. I'm only pointing out that the gaps of evolution can be filled with things that our own current knowledge make possible.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai You clearly misunderstood.

Actually, it is you who seem to misunderstand, mostly you seem to understand the nature of science.

Quote by: Fonceai Evolution has gone beyond theory.

No, it hasn't. Except that you are using the word "evolution" with more than one meaning. Evolution is an definition, observation (data), and a theory. That's why it is called the theory of evolution.

Quote by: Fonceai Human evolution is not proven.

And like any other theory based on observation, hypothesis, prediction, and testing, it never will be proven. It will remain, as it is now, a scientific theory until some evidence is found that falsifies the theory.

Quote by: Fonceai I never implied humans didn't evolve. I gave references that show that it is still unknown.

No you didn't. You apparently didn't understand what you read.

Quote by: Fonceai The point which you are missing is that human evolution is still a very big unknown, both the evolution of our bodies and our intelligence.

There are some unknown pathways and events, but human evolution isn't unknown anymore than whale evolution is unknown, or horse evolution is unknown.

Quote by: Fonceai Currently, it is just as probable that we are the result of deliberate genetic alteration as it is that we are nothing but the result of a few extreme mutations.

Pure nonsense. There is actually no evidence for what you say.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zhavric We understand the mechanism of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. These three things are observable and evidenced.

Besides mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection, there are also the evolutionary mechanisms of gene flow, recombination, and sexual selection. Ernst Mayr, in "What Evolution Is" talks about 7 processes of evolution: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, biased variation, transposable elements, nonrandom mating, and selection.


We have no evidence supporting "deliberate genetic alteration" on human beings. What deliberately altered us? The FSM?

Things that have no evidence are not "just as probable" as things which do have evidence, Fonceai.[/quote]

[Fonceai]

@gallo

What's your point?

You made an effort to refute my post piece by piece but you didn't elaborate any disagreements.

This is common, from you.

For example... if I didn't understand what I read, how about you tell me what the right answer is, instead of just saying I'm wrong.

Your post is the equivalent of a child chanting "wrong wrong wrong" and I'm going to treat it with the necessary respect unless you elaborate more.

You also seem to fail to acknowledge what I've already written regarding the topic.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai You do realize that you are basically stating that you believe something that has no conclusive evidence?

But there is conclusive evidence. That is why evolutionary biologists and paleoanthropologists have reached that conclusion.

Quote by: Fonceai That wasn't the point. The point is that genetic alteration of human beings is possible.

But you claimed that it was likely - just as likely as evolution. It isn't. Why propose magic?

Quote by: Fonceai Or address why it's not universally agreed that humans evolved from something else.

It is universally agreed among evolutionary biologists that humans evolved from something else. Current evidence (both paleontological and genetic) indicate that it happened somewhere in east Africa, somewhere around the Great Rift Valley.

[Zhavric]

As long as we're commenting on one another's debating tactics:

Quote by: Fonceai It's a cowardly evasive tactic you used to avoid addressing a statement. Address it as is.

I've noticed the ad hominem attack is the favored weapon of choice against reasoned debate leveled at you as is accusing others of evading when you, yourself, are evading. As I made perfectly clear I do not discount the supernatural because it's the supernatural. I discount the supernatural because it lacks valid support.

Your disagreement with my answer does not evidence an absence of my answer.

That wasn't the point. The point is that genetic alteration of human beings is possible.

Incomplete.

The evidence you presented supports a position where genetic alteration is possible only with humans doing the alteration. You are implying that alteration happened before humans reached that level of technology. Where is your evidence something else altered us?

Cite me evidence of human evolution.

Rick took care of that nicely.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai @RickSp Those are great links. After reading them, though, the one thing they all propose are theories of origin that are not conclusive. That's my point... that the evolution of humans from "lower" creatures is still not proven. If it were, why would there still be so much research going on?

It is funny. Those who demand evidence on these boards rarely really want evidence. Nothing will ever satify them. To be expected I guess.

You obviously do not grasp the scientific meanings of the word "theory" or "proof." And you ask, why is there more reasearch going on?

Well duh. That is the nature of science. There is always more to learn. As more evidence is uncovered, theories and hypothesis are tested, confirmed or denied, modified or updated.

Gravity is still only a theory. Research on gravity is ongoing and our understanding of gravity is ever changing, even though it doesn't change the outcome of jumping off a tall building. Evolution of like that. It is central to most modern life sciences. It has been "proven" thousands of times in thousands of ways. Yet research still goes on and our understanding continues to grow.

Science is dynamic. Only faith based dogma is static. No proof is possible so no proof is needed.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai @RickSp Those are great links. After reading them, though, the one thing they all propose are theories of origin that are not conclusive. That's my point... that the evolution of humans from "lower" creatures is still not proven. If it were, why would there still be so much research going on?

To find more details. You are still a bit wishy washy in your understanding of science and how it works. Talking about "just theories" and "not proven" demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of science.

Quote by: Fonceai @gallo A summary response would be two things... When I write "human evolution" I'm writing about human origins and not our gradual evolution.

That we are descended from a previous ape-like creature that also gave rise to chimpanzees is well established. There is little doubt, and that is only a formality because of the nature of science and logic.

Quote by: Fonceai The second is that I absolutely do not think theories are wild guesses. I think they are "best" guesses.

Perhaps if you read up on science. Try A.F. Chalmers. 1999. What is this thing called Science?. Hacket Publishing Co. Cambridge. 266 p.

Or Martin Curd & J.A. Cover (eds.). 1998. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. W.W. Norton & Company. New York. 1379 p. That's an anthology with pieces by people like Popper, Kuhn, Ruse, Mellor, Kitcher, and many others.

It would be nice if you got your ideas about science straight and stopped asking for proof.

Quote by: Fonceai Notice that I'm not invalidating theories of evolution.

Of course you're not. That would imply that you actually understood what a scientific theory was and actually understood the theory in the first place.

Quote by: Fonceai I'm only pointing out that the gaps of evolution can be filled with things that our own current knowledge make possible.

And we are pointing out that a god of the gaps isn't necessary. Why answer a lack of knowledge by proposing magic and shutting down honest questions?

[Zhavric]

RickSp: Notice how Fonceai just moved right past this bit?...

Quote by: Zhavric Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.” Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution. Misconceptions: Evolution is “Just” a Theory

[gallo]

Quote by: RickSp It is funny. Those who demand evidence on these boards rarely really want evidence. Nothing will ever satify them. To be expected I guess.

It's the creationist mindset. An answer, once found, is supposed to be perfect and unchanging forever. Theories are guesses that grow up to be facts.

Quote by: RickSp You obviously do not grasp the scientific meanings of the word "theory" or "proof." And you ask, why is there more reasearch going on?

I gave him some suggestions.

Quote by: RickSp Well duh. That is the nature of science. There is always more to learn. As more evidence is uncovered, theories and hypothesis are tested, confirmed or denied, modified or updated.

Not to the creationist mindset. Theories are tested and then become never changing facts.

Quote by: RickSp Gravity is still only a theory. Research on gravity is ongoing and our understanding of gravity is ever changing, even though it doesn't change the outcome of jumping off a tall building.

In fact, as scientific theories go, the theory of gravity is one of the least secure.

Quote by: RickSp Evolution of like that. It is central to most modern life sciences. It has been "proven" thousands of times in thousands of ways. Yet research still goes on and our understanding continues to grow.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky

Quote by: RickSp Science is dynamic. Only faith based dogma is static. No proof is possible so no proof is needed.

But the creationist mindset seeks truth, not knowledge. Truth is never changing.

[Gods_Mercenary]

To me, evolution just makes sense, it seems so obvious when you look at it from a mindset not crowded with silly misunderstandings and misbeliefs.

[Fonceai]

How about you three all get on the same page and have just one of you respond.

The mutual stroking is cute, it really is, but when comments are clearly addressed to one of you and the rest of you respond, it really doesn't help.

I'll give it a try thought.

First of all... all three of you clearly don't want to have a fun discussion and instead would rather be derogatory. It's nice to see grown men skirt the rules just barely in order to make themselves feel better.

Quote by: gallo But there is conclusive evidence

If there is conclusive evidence, why is it still a theory... why isn't it just a fact and left alone?

In other words, why refine something that is conclusive?

Quote by: gallo Why propose magic?

Genetic alteration is magic? This is news to me.

Quote by: gallo It is universally agreed among evolutionary biologists that humans evolved from something else. Current evidence (both paleontological and genetic) indicate that it happened somewhere in east Africa, somewhere around the Great Rift Valley.

Really? Every single evolutionary biologist agrees that humans evolved as you describe?

I've been sifting through Evolutionary Biology Resources and what I see, and I'm going to be very careful to write this out correctly, is as follows:

Human emergence through evolution is the theory which scientists are working to find evidence.

If it were proven, they would be done. But they are constantly researching in order to find the truth of human emergence through evolution.

Disagree with me on that and you'll be a fool disagreeing with me on principle. What I stated is simple and is all I've been alluding to in this thread.

I question why people who claim to be so science-minded are so dismissive of any suggestion or alternative, especially one that is most definitely possible given our current technology.

Currently, research into emergence through evolution is the same as saying, "We've got this one idea that looks good so far, and we're working on it, but if anyone else has any ideas, as long as they don't contradict what we have already proven they look good."

Also note that I'm not saying evolution is wrong. Absolutely not at all. Nor am I saying "God did it".

What started this slant on the topic was whether creationism is valid, and then addressing different types of creationism.

Quote by: Z As I made perfectly clear I do not discount the supernatural because it's the supernatural. I discount the supernatural because it lacks valid support.

No, you just made that perfectly clear now. You have never done so in the past. I don't try to read into posts, I don't expect others to do so with mine. If I am unclear I expect someone to say that they think I wasn't clear and ask me to clarify. You just clarified, and I happen to agree with you that the supernatural does not have valid support.

Quote by: Z The evidence you presented supports a position where genetic alteration is possible only with humans doing the alteration. You are implying that alteration happened before humans reached that level of technology. Where is your evidence something else altered us?

I don't have any. Does that mean it's "wrong" or just "improbable"?

Quote by: RickSp It is funny. Those who demand evidence on these boards rarely really want evidence. Nothing will ever satify them. To be expected I guess.

Did I not acknowledge your references?

The problem is that they don't answer the specific request I made.

Quote by: RickSp Evolution of like that. It is central to most modern life sciences. It has been "proven" thousands of times in thousands of ways. Yet research still goes on and our understanding continues to grow. Science is dynamic. Only faith based dogma is static. No proof is possible so no proof is needed.

You wonder why it seems I'm confused?

Because you guys write stuff like that which I quoted.

Was it proven or not? Is proof possible or not?

It also appears that all of you are taking the "you don't understand science" tack. I think I understand pretty well. I'm not close-minded to any option of explanation on topics that are still up in the air.

There are no definitive answers to the questions of gravity and evolution, so we just use our best guesses for the time being until we get a better understanding or find something that cancels it out and starts something new. Just like the diagram Isherwood posted elsewhere.

I don't dismiss anything just for the sake of dismissing it because it deals with something improbable. I just place it low on my list of priorities for further investigation.

Quote by: gallo It would be nice if you got your ideas about science straight and stopped asking for proof.

It would be nice if, before you jump up my ass, you read the part where Zhavric writes about proven claims and conclusive evidence.

I ask for proof in response to those who claim the answers are conclusive.

The references they give to not prove "conclusively". I'm fully aware that it isn't possible to "prove" and I ask for the proof because of that awareness.

Quote by: gallo Of course you're not. That would imply that you actually understood what a scientific theory was and actually understood the theory in the first place.

Do you absolutely find it necessary to act this way?

You're clearly older than I am and you have an advanced knowledge in science, so what purpose is there in posting that way?

Do you think you'll teach me something or convince me I'm wrong?

Do you honestly think that another adult that works in science will respect what you have to say when you conduct yourself as such?

It's sad that I would get an infraction for calling you the appropriate name, yet you get off on posting that way in the first place. I'd think you'd be old enough to know better and treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Quote by: gallo Why answer a lack of knowledge by proposing magic and shutting down honest questions?

Since you are going to ignore the point I was making, then please tell me how genetic alteration is magic?

You seem to be jumping on a bandwagon instead of reading what I've written.

I simply presented that there are possibilities that accommodate multiple theories, and genetic alteration is one of them.

So I ask you again, how is genetic alteration "magic"?

Quote by: Z Notice how Fonceai just moved right past this bit?...

Do I have a reason to address it?

Your inability to think beyond your own near-sightedness shows that you'd rather belittle and insult than try to understand.

Instead of reading my post and trying to think you instead entertain that little head of yours by finding a way to insult me. You skate by with your insults because they aren't direct. I don't have that kind of approach, and I'm also capable of more respect than you... I've already agreed with you once in this post... did you catch it, or are you too busy trying to feel good about yourself?

Finally, gallo, in reference to Post #75... and to RickSp and Zhavric just to be complete...

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST

I have made that abundantly clear.

I find all three of you to be hypocritical that you would go to such lengths to berate someone for presenting an idea that challenges normal thinking and then having the gall to claim I don't understand science.

What would science be without challenging normal thinking?

As long as you nay-say different thinking through your own derogatory means of strutting your superiority, you belittle the purpose of discussion.

I respect all three of you, but the irony of your ignorance disgusts me. You can continue stroking each other off in this thread, if you wish. It's my own fault for thinking the three of you would be capable of civil discussion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The mutual stroking is cute, it really is

Quote by: Fonceai First of all... all three of you clearly don't want to have a fun discussion and instead would rather be derogatory.

Quote by: Fonceai Your inability to think ....

Quote by: Fonceai that little head of yours

Pot meet kettle.

It was a non-derogatory discussion until you accused us of "mutual stroking" and an inability to think.

I do like how you ended your post:

Quote by: Fonceai I respect all three of you,

Your way of demonstrating respect seems strangely disrespectful. You also seem to think that attacking an argument is equivalent to attacking a person. That is not so.

No, you just made that perfectly clear now. You have never done so in the past.

I made it pefectly clear what my stance was by re-wording a statement you made. The fact that you didn't like what I had to say doesn't mean my point was obfuscated.

I don't try to read into posts

Of course you do. You read an insult into my neutral post here and then stated "Interpretation is up to the recipient, not the speaker.
" here.

You just clarified, and I happen to agree with you that the supernatural does not have valid support.

Then you should be an atheist. Unless you're coming over to the light side, I suspect you don't hold the above quoted claim as true.

Quote: