Evangelical war on evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: 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.

So what you are saying is that, in the future, you will refrain from commenting in any thread unless you are directly addressed.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Pointing out where you are wrong is not derogatory. Why do you feel that the condescension is necessary. Can't you act like a grown man?

Quote by: Fonceai 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?

It is a theory because the evidence in conclusive. From the facts there must first come an hypothesis (that is the best guess part). Then there a prediction followed by a test that can falsify the prediction. If it passes the test, it may be called a theory. You are saying that the data should be left alone. You are saying that the fact that humans have a chromosome 2 is enough. Science should stop there.

Quote by: Fonceai Genetic alteration is magic? This is news to me.

They way you propose it is.

Quote by: Fonceai Really? Every single evolutionary biologist agrees that humans evolved as you describe?

Yep.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

It doesn't say they are trying to prove it. Why do you continue to try to make yourself look scientifically illiterate. Science does not prove. That scientists are looking for evidence of evolution means that they are trying to explain how evolution works. They are not proving anything. Creationists will give you proof. They know the TROOTH, like you.

Quote by: Fonceai But they are constantly researching in order to find the truth of human emergence through evolution.

No, they're not. They are looking for evidence from which they can build explanations of human origins. They are not looking for TROOTH and they are not looking for PROOF.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Note that you are starting the insults. You continue to display your scientific illiteracy and your total ignorance of evolutionary theory and when you are corrected you call me a fool. You should really be aware that you are making yourself look quite foolish. Either grow up and discuss without insult or go away.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Because you understand so little that you aren't even aware that you aren't talking about science. You are inserting magic where it isn't necessary and where the only effect is to stop inquiry.

Quote by: Fonceai 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."

That's just sour grapes nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't a clue as to who in the scientific community disagrees or why they do so. One thing they do not propose is a magic being in the gaps of knowledge.

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

Sounds like it. Sounds like you are saying that your magic god is responsible for what we don't quite understand yet. Typical creationist, scientific illiterate response.

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

Creationism is valid as faith without evidence. However, most forms of creationism have been shown to be wrong by actual evidence.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Then why have you been proposing it? If you haven't then maybe you can clarify exactly what it is that you are trying to say. Perhaps if you learned what science is and how it works first.

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

Is the tooth fairy wrong or just improbable? Magic has no place in science.

Quote by: Fonceai Was it proven or not? Is proof possible or not?

Proof is possible in math, law, and booze. Scientific proof is not possible. If you understood logic and science you would know that.

Quote by: Fonceai It also appears that all of you are taking the "you don't understand science" tack. I think I understand pretty well.

No. Clearly you don't.

Quote by: Fonceai I'm not close-minded to any option of explanation on topics that are still up in the air.

That is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the conclusiveness of a scientific theory.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Scientific illiteracy. They aren't guesses anymore. They are scientific theories. Why do you creationists continue to demand proof?

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

Great! Then go and investigate your god and tell us when you have some evidence other than your "it cudda happened."

Quote by: Fonceai 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".

Answers are not proven conclusively. Why is it that you can't seem to grasp that. Science explains.

Quote by: Fonceai I'm fully aware that it isn't possible to "prove" and I ask for the proof because of that awareness.

No, you want to cast doubt on human evolution so you demand proof. If you know that it is logically impossible, that does not reflect well on your honesty.

Quote by: Fonceai 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?

Because you are talking about my field of expertise. You are showing your ignorance of science and evolution, and when I correct you, you continue to insist in your error. You don't listen when you are treated with respect and thus you show that you don't deserve that respect.

Quote by: Fonceai Do you think you'll teach me something or convince me I'm wrong?

Probably not. You're going to have to learn about science for yourself. I can't make you understand.

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

How is that relevant. The point is that you continue to show your scientific illiteracy.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

You have already started the name calling. The point is that you appear to be scientifically illiterate and the isn't an insult. It is based on conclusive evidence. That's just the way it is. What's worse, you don't even try to learn.

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

Either spirits or spacemen, since we are not talking about modern gene engineering.

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

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

Genetic alteration is not a theory. You are talking science so you should learn what a theory is in science. It isn't a fantasy as you seem to think. A theory has conclusive evidence to support it. A theory doesn't grow up to become a fact.

Quote by: Fonceai So I ask you again, how is genetic alteration "magic"?

Same answer.

Quote by: Fonceai 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.

You have made it abundantly clear that you may be one because you repeatedly present creationist arguments.

Quote by: Fonceai [snip of insult]

[RickSp]

The problem, Fonceai, is that the word "theory" has a somewhat different meaning in scientific terms than in common parlance. Gravity is scientific terms is still only a theory. Stephen J. Gould does a good job explaining why evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

[Fonceai]

@RickSp

Thank you for a normal response.

I read the article you linked and it was much clearer in addressing both the comments you have made and my own comments.

What I would like to draw your attention to is the following, from the article you cited...

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

This is part of what I've been trying to say today (Tuesday) and the contradictions I'm pointing out.

Evolution is a fact. We know it happens. We know it has happened to humans. It has been proven.

But the transition from "something else" to human is the theorized part.

The reason is it theorized is because, as your pointed out, we don't fully understand the mechanism of evolution. If we understood the mechanism, we could look at humans and look at the mechanism "in reverse", so to speak, to find out what we came from.

Because the mechanism of evolution is still a theory, we can't say with absolute certainty that humans evolved from "something else" when we don't know what that something else is.

Further more, as radical and "magic" as it may seem, I thought it might actually be something fun and interesting to propose that intentional genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution through which humans emerged.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Further more, as radical and "magic" as it may seem, I thought it might actually be something fun and interesting to propose that intentional genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution through which humans emerged.

Most of us lost our sense of humor a few years ago when the Christian right did it's best to force schools to teach ID along side (or worse instead of) evolution. Most jokes aren't so funny when some people out in the world demand they be taken seriously.

Also, please stop doing this:

Evolution is a fact. We know it happens. We know it has happened to humans. It has been proven. ... Because the mechanism of evolution is still a theory, we can't say with absolute certainty that humans evolved from "something else" when we don't know what that something else is.

It's neither fun nor interesting to watch you take up both sides of a debate so that you can argue with anyone who takes a decisive stance. As we've seen several times in this thread, your temper often flares and for what?

[RickSp]

Fonceai, this is way past boring. If you can't bother to learn even the meaning of the word theory as used in a scientific context, why bother posting?

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested against empiral data or observations and has been found to be accurate and repeatable. As has been noted countless times before, gravity is "only a theory". Theories are alway supported by facts, which is why they are so easily distinquished from religion. And unlike religion, in science there is never absolute "certainty" of anything.

So if you want to propose anything "radical" or "magic" such as "intentional genetic mutation" or for that matter, pink and purple fairies with magic wands, that is fine. Just don't confuse it with science.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: RickSp If you can't bother to learn even the meaning of the word theory as used in a scientific context, why bother posting?

Did I not respond last night that I read and understood the link you posted?

I completely understand what you're writing about... the point was I was trying to have fun.

As Zhavric pointed out, the three of you apparently have no sense of humor or chose to let your personal opinions prevent you from being humane.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Fonceai Did I not respond last night that I read and understood the link you posted? I completely understand what you're writing about... the point was I was trying to have fun. As Zhavric pointed out, the three of you apparently have no sense of humor or chose to let your personal opinions prevent you from being humane.

Yawn. My sense of homor is just fine, thank you very much. If you write rubbish, expect it to be treated as such. There has been so much garbage posted by creationists on this and other threads that it all gets really tedious covering the same points. I expect Dirty Name to reappear at any minute.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai As Zhavric pointed out, the three of you apparently have no sense of humor or chose to let your personal opinions prevent you from being humane.

What a fallacious debate tactic? Take a stance, try to support it, claim you've argued both sides, and tell everyone "just kidding lol" when you get called on it.

You have not brought teh funny to this thread, Fonceai.

[Matt W]

Enough. Debate civilly or shut up. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fonceai Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.

Yes. We have observed evolution. Those are observations are the data (the facts) that the theories explain. First an hypothesis is stated that tentatively explains the facts. Then a prediction is made that must be true if the hypothesis is correct. The a test is devised that will either falsify or support the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is strongly supported it is a theory. It never gets any better and it is never proven.

Quote by: Fonceai We know it has happened to humans. It has been proven.

No. It has been observed. The facts of science are the observations and the data. Theories are not proven. They are tested and supported and sometimes adjusted when new data is found. We know it has happened to humans because we have accumulated vast amounts of data that can only be explained by evolutionary theory.

Quote by: Fonceai But the transition from "something else" to human is the theorized part.

Nope. That's not it. Go back and read the Gould quote again and think carefully about what he is saying. I have been telling you the same thing in this and other threads.

Quote by: Fonceai The reason is it theorized is because, as your pointed out, we don't fully understand the mechanism of evolution.

No. There you go with the creationist arguments again, simply because you don't understand science. The reason it is a theory is because we do understand, in profound detail, the mechanisms of evolution. Those theories are predictive, and have been used to make predictions that have been verified, which further supports the theories. You've got to stop using the word theory in a non-scientific way when talking about science. A theory is as good as it gets in science.

Quote by: Fonceai If we understood the mechanism, we could look at humans and look at the mechanism "in reverse", so to speak, to find out what we came from.

We do. Geneticists have been looking at DNA for a long time and have accumulated some pretty good data about that. But just because we understand the mechanisms, evolution is, fore the most part, a process of random mutation and natural selection. Certain DNA comparisons can give some idea about when random mutations took place in the past, and studies of geology can tell us some about the environment of the past, but not enough to run evolution in reverse.

Quote by: Fonceai Because the mechanism of evolution is still a theory, we can't say with absolute certainty that humans evolved from "something else" when we don't know what that something else is.

There you go with the creationism again. "Evolution is still a theory" as if it is going to grow up to be a fact. Learn what science is. Theories are as good as it gets in science. Science explains it does not prove.

Quote by: Fonceai Further more, as radical and "magic" as it may seem, I thought it might actually be something fun and interesting to propose that intentional genetic mutation is the mechanism of evolution through which humans emerged.

You thought wrong. It was neither fun nor interesting. It was just a wild fantasy based on no evidence whatsoever, and opposed by considerable real scientific evidence. I know, what if gravity is just a matter of invisible beings that push things towards earth? Isn't that fun and interesting?