Hello from Australia!

Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Hello from Australia!

I have just joined this great Forum and look forward to some interesting discussions.

I found this place by accident, or should I say 'chance? I was investigating the historical Jesus question and came to a link about Josephus written by a member of this Forum (Josephus - What's the Deal? by Rook_Hawkins). I read it and was impressed by the article. I thought: well, if this is the quality of discussion on this Forum it will be worth while hanging around.

Just a brief bio: I am an ex-pat Canadian living in Australia in a small rural town. Many eons ago, I graduated from university with a degree in Philosophy and English Literature. I am semi-retired now and am working the rust off my brain cells. Lately, I have been disturbed by a trend in argumentation now that puts enormous emphasis on truth by authority - if you don't have a relevant degree in the subject or haven't a peer-reviewed paper out there, your opinion is (of course) meaningless and worthless. I'm afraid I am old-school: an argument stands on its own merit no matter who presented it. Add to that the "a thousand experts say it is true, so it must be true" canard and just about any speculation is easily sown up neat.

My latest curiosity is the similarity between two hotly debated positions: the historical Jesus proposal and the Theory of Evolution. It strikes me that both arguments rely on rather similar argument styles and yet a rationalist-leaning mind in one case will argue the evidence doesn't exist, so the proposal fails, and yet, in the other case will argue that despite the lack of evidence, the proposal still holds. It is really a fascinating phenomenon for me!

Anyway, I will wander around and sample some threads just to make sure I don't repeat what is already there.

Hope to meet some of you down the road!

S.

 

 

(Yeh... Socrates is my hero...)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crikey

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 one thinking this, but you make some very odd assertions, Sockra.

You seem to fail to understand the concept of modifiable hypothesis. You assert the fossil record 'betrays' evolution, you insist evolutionary theory is a religion and that science declares 'Ignore it!' when faced with things it does not know. You insist the gap fossils aren't there as if they will never be there, when tens of thousands of new fossils are discovered every year and many intermediates. You claim there is counter evidence for evolution but what you are doing is highlighting gaps in a record that is entirely self sustaining. No fossil evidence has ever been found that undermines evolution and if you have some I want to see it.

Actually I do understand and accept modifiable hypothesis. That is what I ask more of from Evolution Theory. The Theory needs to be scaled back to the actual evidence we have and the violations of Occam's razor need to be acknowledged and we need to remove the species that are not proven to exist and we need to remove the speciation mechanism which has never been shown to exist in nature. Yes, I am all for modifying Evolution Theory - modify it back to proper Science. Intermediate fossils have not been found. Fossils have been found, and they require labelling. Temptation for mendacity will be great. What is an intermediate fossil? Pretending a hominid fossil is actually a fossil of some antecdent species pre-hominid is not Science; it is playing with evidence. Scientists, in an attempt to be the famous ones who have "proved" Darwin correct have pretended a species of bird has actually "speciated" and become another species. The news didn't make much of a splash as it was rather obvious it was a pathetic attempt to pretend two birds of the same species were "birds of a different feather." As an athesist, I am sure you are aware of the mendacities from religious apologists and their attempts to present speculations and inferences as facts. Do you really believe Evolution evangelists are immune from such motivations? Shouldn't we be on guard for people slipping the wool over us? I need fossils where it is evident they are ancestors or descendents of a different species. Just saying it is so, doesn't make it so: we know that with the god hypothesis don't we? Your so-called imtermediate fossils are nothing more than a shard of wood in a monestary that the monks claim came from the Cross. The pedigree of the actual thing is a matter of faith, not science. I say again: DNA homology does not PROVE descent. It is a gross non sequitor that I am hoping gets recognized more and more for what it is.

Atheistextremist wrote:

You also seem to ignore the posts of others who offer you intermediate fossils. Just as you ignore the advances in the study of genetic speciation and even in the existence of the reptilian brain underlaying the mammalian limbic system and the primate neocortex in humans. We all know the science is incomplete but evolutionary theory is proven across multiple disciplines. You have even admitted it works within species but chose to deny there is a point when natural selection expresses genetic speciation even though Darwin's finches and Wallace's butterflies prove you quite wrong.

 

The finches and butterflies argumenst have been debateable as evidence for speciation. The intermediate fossils I have spoken to just now. As for ignoring science and advances, yes I ignore a great deal of it: the science that doesn't pertain to the Evolution theses I ignore, because that is science and it is valid and rational. It can be ignored as it doesn't impact. I do not ignore science that proves speciation and common ancestry from mythical species because there is no science to ignore. These things are being asserted to be true without evidence. That is my problem with The Theory. Assertions instead of evidence. That is the playground of religion. I do not want science to become religion. Though I am a deist, (I think?) I do believe such a god is "proven" in the heart through faith not science. There is no place in science, which studies the universe, for god. So, I am not trying to sneak God into Science; I actually want "him" kept out!! That is what worries me about the change of rules: that a supposition can turn into "scientific fact" without supporting evidence. That disturbs me. As said before, I am disturbed that the registered owner of the gun is arrested for murder. The registration is not evidence of murder. It is a non sequitor. The fossils do not evidence speciation; that is a non sequitor too.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

I'm not sure what your core beliefs actually are and you seem to keep them close to your chest. As a deist I assume you believe some hypothetical external first cause created life. Yet you insist natural selection creates species and reject the idea of speciation as if natural selection by climate change/continental drift and other environmental pressure does not inevitably lead to it. You say there is no common ancestor yet we know the oldest life forms are archeo bacteria that existed alone on the planet for hundreds of millions of years. You ignore the fact all multicellular creatures are comprised of colonies of highly specialised Eukaryote cells, all, as far as we can tell, identical in primary form and function to Eukaryotes that are over 2.7 billion years old.

Natural selection that can create one species is natural selection that can create a trillion species. Unless we solve the question of the mechanism of abiogenesis from square one, we cannot conclusively say one way or another how life forms. I suppose you are looking at a lawn of grass and saying, "Amazing what one grass seed can do!" And I say, "Huh? What makes you think this all came from one grass seed? Three months ago, I scattered several buckets of grass seed. The grass blades are growing independently - some slower than others". For all we know, deep in the jungles, new species are formig now. For all we know. New species are being "discovered" but how long have they been around?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Further, you call ET a lineage mythology but offer no proof of fossils that undermine its fundamental contention that life changes over time. You also insist science 'creates' creatures that don't exist when we all know it hypothesises their existence then searches for data to support its hypothesis. You say evolution is religion masquerading as science. You even suggest ET claims we evolved from chimps when quite obviously every living organism is the current latest model and we all know evolution doesn't work laterally but applies backwards in time. These feeble throwaways seem to me to betray your repeated assertions you are devoted to one true science or to rational thought.

Well, abiogenesis may 'change' over time. Which is just to say if a process that creates life in the first place is posited, how can we just assume it can only do it once at one single point in time and it's finished. Finis. Natural selection takes over from then on. No. isn't it a possible hypothesis that along with natural selection (being an ongoing process) that abiogenesis is also an ongoing process, so species are constantly being created... ergo punctuated equilibrium possibly? If a comet hit the earth and created incredible trauma, let's say 97% of all species die. After a few hundred thousand years or so, when the effects settle a bit.. is it possible that new life may form again? If so, that is a matter of abiogenesis - an ongoing mechanism. Descent isn't the only mechanism. Abiogenesis is its own mechanism. We close our eyes to that possibility if we pretend "descent answers all; move on folks; there's nothing more here to see... or discover." Science needs this spirit of inquiry; not blind allegiance to a Theory.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra, if you have anything empirically new to offer that undermines the data supporting evolutionary theory, anything that is not a wave at a fossil gap or an assertion of your own opinion based on an appeal to complexity or an appeal to ignorance, now's the time to dish it up. 

I have no fossils to present to undermine ET; I have no evidence to disprove ET... but we must play fair here. Do you have proof god doesn't exist? I believe I can undermine the logic of ET by simply exposing its unscientific character. The "assertion instead of evidence" nature of ET is plain and obvious to see. It is simply up to each one of us to decide if that is what Science should be. If so, you have no basis to stop a theistic scientist from arguing that God is abiogenesis. Your only possible objection would be that there is no evidence for god as abiogenesis, and the reply would be: so what? there is no evidence for speciation and YOU can assert it to be fact, so I can assert my suppositions to be fact too.

"But, you may say, there is  actually NO evidence for god being abiogenesis or god at all!"

"Well, comes the reply, god creates life, and abiogenesis creates life and we obviously see that life has been created, so there we have evidence of god."

Rationally, we shouldn't allow that but sadly, ET has changed the rules, and we no longer actually NEED evidence to call something fact.

 

I'm not trolling by the way. Does anyone else here see - though not agreeing - but actually SEE this problem about the new, post ET paradigm about scientific evidence? "We don't need evidence right now; it's enough the Theory is right. The evidence will come in the future." ???  Yikes.

 

 

Sock - why do you equate fossil gaps in an otherwise functioning record as being the same as too little evidence for abiogenesis or no evidence whatever for a supernatural external first cause?

No one is saying ET has no evidence. The beauty of Darwin and Wallace's work was the effort they put into gathering data in support of their hypothesis. That work has continued apace.  

You seem to be suggesting that gaps in the fossil record mean the entire record is invalid or should be interpreted in an unusual new light - that all creatures were created and they evolve to extinction separately. 

Why do you need this to be the case? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:adds

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

adds nothing to the topic at hand. The modifiable hypothesis is perfectly capable of handling the discovery of new evidence relating to the bending of light. If you want this discovery to help you, show us your new evidence.   

Stay on the topic instead of diving off into these abstractions. Do you agree the fossil record shows that the first Eukaryotes are about 3 billion years old? 

Do you agree the fossil record shows that these single celled organisms lived on earth in the absence of multicellular creatures for 1.5 billion years? 

Just yes or no will do. 

I agree with the fossil record. What inferences do you make from the fossil record? So the first Eukaryotes are 3 billion years old? Congratulations on your knowledge about Eukaryotes. Now can you please show me how these Eukaryotes are the ancestors of homo sapiens by descent? Something more than just telling me it is so, and that I am just suppose to take your word for it.

So this species lived on earth in the absence of multi-cellular creatures. Okay. What do we infer from that? Is this when your Flying Speciating Spaghetti Monster arrives and speciates the single cell life into multi-cell life? Do you have any evidence of what actually went on back then?

So my answer is yes. I have answered you. Just do not infer from that that all the mythical species that you claim entail from that 'yes' are my belief also.

 

Let me return the question. As it appears you are hesitant to actually address the issue of evidence: Evolution Theory, and its High Priest Richard Dawkins, have declared that chimp and man are descended from a common ancestor which procreated both species. Can you provide me with clear evidence, vis a vis proper scientific method, of the existence of this common ancestor? We needn't go back 3.5 billion years: let us just go back to this most near Spaghetti Monster that Evolution posits. Yes or no will not do... you cannot hide behind mere assertion this time... let us not pretend it exists - this is afterall a question of Science and evidence. Show me how this common ancestor between man and chimp rests on more solid ground than a god.

If yes, can you provide me with specifics. I expect an answer in your next post to this thread. I have answered your question; I expect the same courtesy in return. I anticipate your answer with great eagerness because many others have been placed in this situation before, and this is the point where they simply disappear from discussion. Because of course, as we all know, the evidence does not exist.

This is always a good exercise to at least show others that the basis for Evolution Theory is as weak as the basis for theism. Where people begin to realize that Evolution Theory is an Emperor with no clothes.

 

 An interesting video as a hint:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmTPThWD_c

Richard Dawkins explaining common ancestry. For the indoctrinated I am sure it sounds quite feasible. For outsiders, isn't it intersting that five species on the board are represented by pictures - species that are evidenced in Nature, yet the four "common ancestors" that ET uses to explain "cousin-hood" don't have representative pictures. Isn't that curious? Does that maybe have something to do with.... lack of evidence??

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:Actually,

Sockra Tease wrote:

Actually, I do believe the opposite.

Well you're wrong.

A belief held in carefully cultivated ignorance is not worthy of respect.

Sockra Tease wrote:

People believe Evolution is true because they are told, from a young age, it is true, and by the way, you will need many degrees in Science to prove it false, so don't bother.

There are many people with "many degrees" in science that have proven it thousands of time.   But you reject all evidence without even entertaining the possibility that they might know what they are talking about.   And you offer no convincing alternative.  Nothing that even remotely makes any logical sense.

Sockra Tease wrote:
The poison spreads: the fossil record betrays Evolution. Darwin's expectations were not met by the fossil record. He knew it in his lifetime before he passed away. It saddened him.

Prove this.   I want to know where you received this information.   Please present it.   It's utter bullshit.   And if you can not provide me, all of us on this forum, with the evidence to back up this statement, you are commiting a complete failure with this utter nonsense of a statement.

I will present evidence where the fossil record backs up Evolutionary Theory.   Intermediate fossils.   Those things you claim that don't exist.  Holy fuck.

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil that preserves an intermediate form between dinosaur and bird.

http://www.bartleby.com/86/0701.html

Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish from the late Devonian period. It is a transitional fossil fish with many features of tetrapods. It has both gills and lungs. It has wrists and digits; it's weight bearing.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Now, I know what your next creationist statement is going to be.   That somehow, beyond all rationality, these are not transitional fossils.

Please define for us right now what type of fossil you WOULD consider a transitional fossil.

The true answer for you, is absolutely no kind of fossil, ever, not matter what, would you ever consider transitional.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Evolution has given us nothing but myth. Evolution has made no predictions;

Do you know how flu shots work?   Do you know how they make pesticides or vaccinations?   Do you know how doctors fight HIV?   Do you know why doctors will give you not only one drug that kills staph infections but they give a combination of two or more drugs that each, alone, will kill staph?   Do you know why they do this?

Because they do it based on the established principles of the Theory of Evolution.   If you just dismiss this, refuse to investigate, dismiss it out of hand, you are being completely unreasonable, totally illogical, and you have an agenda.   You find the possibility of evolution being truth threatening.

Why?

I know why.   You think all species on this planet were created by a supreme being.   There is no other reason why you will steadfastly ignore all facts, evidence, and rationale that may undermine this cherished belief in your head.

Sockra Tease wrote:
It is like pretending that Hydrogen descended from Helium. Why do we need to have a descent myth like this? Is it not possible to have Helium, and Hydrogen and that is all? That is certainly all for Science. Sure, helium and hydrogen have "structural homology" - they both have electrons and protons. What do we infer from that? Descent? Why?

???

You do realize that our sun is turning hydrogen into helium right now, right?

The sun uses a series of nuclear reactions called the hydrogen cycle.

First, two protons hit each other and one is converted into a neutron and a positron. The proton and neutron cling together to make a deuterium nucleus. This is a standard nuclear reaction.

Then, another proton hits the deuterium nucleus. Now that nucleus has two protons and one neutron. This is a helium-3 nucleus.

Finally, two helium-3 nuclei hit each other. Two protons and two neutrons stick together to make a helium-4 nucleus. The other two protons fly away to enter into other reactions.

The net result is that six protons come together to make a helium nucleau (which has two protons and two neutrons), two positrons, and two protons.

The first reaction in this sequence is very slow and is why the sun is still shining after 5 billion years.

Other types of stars (red giants) use another sequence of nuclear reactions called the carbon cycle, but this doesn't happen in our sun.   Holy shit, dude.   You have access to the internet.   Fucking use it for more than making really retarded denials against established, proven science.   
Sockra Tease wrote:
The underlying inference of atheism is that thousands and thousands of scientists then and now who believe/ed in god are also stupid.
  No.   I don't think someone is stupid just because they believe in a god.   I think they are mistaken. My mother is highly intelligent and a devout Southern Baptist.   She's not stupid in the slightest.   But she's wrong about the god idea in my opinion.    

Sockra Tease wrote:
I really can't accept that.

 

 

Of course not.   No amount of proven facts, confirmed evidence, undeniable proof will be accepted by you.

 

 

Sockra Tease wrote:
There are many papers out there remarking on the chimp and man DNA homology. It is pretty darn close. Evolution says there is ONE, AND ONLY ONE explanation to account for this: common descent - descent from a common ancestor (as yet totally unevidenced in Nature. Unevidenced, but that's okay. We are told to just wait until the evidence arrives. Sound familiar? A borrow-over from Christianity maybe?).

 

 

No, we have the evidence.   You refuse to accept any of it.

Please posit your OTHER EXPLANATION.

 

 

Sockra Tease wrote:
Natural selection. Nature selected chimps with 24 pairs. Nature selected homo sapien with 23 pairs. Why is that not a solution?

 

 

Because...it...doesn't...explain anything.

How does that explain anything?   Nature selected what?   From what?   Where did humans originate from?   We're just here and have always been here?   The Earth formed 5 billion years ago and boom there were just humans from nowhere?

And across the way chimps magically just poofed into existence?

What?  Is this a joke?   Are you being serious?   This is the explanation that makes the most sense to you?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:I have no

Sockra Tease wrote:

I have no fossils to present to undermine ET; I have no evidence to disprove ET... but we must play fair here. Do you have proof god doesn't exist?

There is no possible evidence that can disprove the fairy tale of god.  None.  That's because the idea of god is not a scientific theory.  It  has no testable way to prove or disprove it.  Evolution though is held to very strict standards and must earn it's keep constantly.

That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.   I don't say god doesn't exist, I just find it implausable and has no evidence to back it up.

While a billion year old mammal or bird fossil will utterly destroy the Theory of Evolution.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The point is

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

adds nothing to the topic at hand. The modifiable hypothesis is perfectly capable of handling the discovery of new evidence relating to the bending of light. If you want this discovery to help you, show us your new evidence.   

Stay on the topic instead of diving off into these abstractions. Do you agree the fossil record shows that the first Eukaryotes are about 3 billion years old? 

Do you agree the fossil record shows that these single celled organisms lived on earth in the absence of multicellular creatures for 1.5 billion years? 

Just yes or no will do. 

I agree with the fossil record. What inferences do you make from the fossil record? So the first Eukaryotes are 3 billion years old? Congratulations on your knowledge about Eukaryotes. Now can you please show me how these Eukaryotes are the ancestors of homo sapiens by descent? Something more than just telling me it is so, and that I am just suppose to take your word for it.

 

 

The point is that long ago life was restricted to just free-living Eukaryotes. Today we see complex life forms that are comprised of agglomerations of 100 billion Eukaryotes. The cell structures are the same as the first Eukaryotes and as far back as we can go, 420 million years, the DNA is just the same with only a handful of fundamental mutations. 

The inferences I make are exceedingly clear. We, and all multicellular creatures, are colonies of Eukaryotes which have developed cellular junctions to a high degree, facilitating cell specialisation within overall symbiosis. Yes, this hypothesis is not assured. But it's the best supported explanation for Earth's past and current biodiversity. I am open to new evidence that refutes it. We all agree the science is quite young. But the signs are clear.  

 

http://news.discovery.com/earth/oldest-dna-bacteria-discovered.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sockra Tease

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

I have no fossils to present to undermine ET; I have no evidence to disprove ET... but we must play fair here. Do you have proof god doesn't exist?

There is no possible evidence that can disprove the fairy tale of god.  None.  That's because the idea of god is not a scientific theory.  It  has no testable way to prove or disprove it.  Evolution though is held to very strict standards and must earn it's keep constantly.

That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.   I don't say god doesn't exist, I just find it implausable and has no evidence to back it up.

While a billion year old mammal or bird fossil will utterly destroy the Theory of Evolution.

I am sayin there is no possible evidence that can disprove Evolution Theory, so speciation and theism are on the same table.

First of all your example is not realistic; I would rather be given a realistic example.

I think we both know Science well enough to know that one single solitary bird fossil out of place would not destroy a Theory. The first reaction would be the premise of "error": there is something amiss with that fossil, BECAUSE, there is only one in all the world. (In reality, I suspect the very first premise would be a dishonest Creationist planted the fossil to try to destroy Evolution... but that's a digression...) No. the first thought would be error.

You may recall recently, that "Science" was shocked by the discovery in Switzerland (the accelerator) that a sub-atomic particle could travel faster than light. Yikes! A collapse of a vital scientific truism!??? No. The first reaction was "error". It was investigated, and it was found. The experiments were done again, and to everyone's relief, Science went back to what it was: the particles do NOT travel faster than light. Science looks upon ONE solitary instance out of place as error.

Now, what you may be meaning is: what if a whole slew of bird fossils were found "out of time" so to speak - so many that the premise of "archeology error" or mendacity cannot hold. Again, I would contend that will not destroy Evolution. (Nothing can destroy a religion except the total loss of all believers). Evolution Theory is immensely modifiable - especially since it is so distant from actual evidence but is based upon inferences upon the facts, and it is very easy to modify inferences. If bird fossils were found "out of place" then Evoution Theory just has to go to the bird evogram and make an adjustment. Birds will now be considered derivative of a proto-bird species that existed long ago, and this proto-bird was a distant relative of the birds we now know. But what about the great gap between proto-birds and our birds, you ask? Very simple, Evolution has that covered. (Nothing will defeat Evolution since it can't be proven and will never be proven false). What is the mechanism that explains ALL fossil gaps? Well...what is Evolution's God of the Gaps?

That's right... it's 'punctuated equilibrium'. The proto-bird existed long ago, punctuation!!, and then somehow, we don't know how but "poof!" the birds came came slightly different though. Remember, "poof!" is a term used by Evolution to explain how the first species came to be. "Poof!" is part of Evolution Theory. How can such a thing happen? Simple - Evolution has the one answer for everything: natural selection. "Natural selection" by the way is Evolution's articulation of "poof!".

So you see, eveerything can be explained. There is, ultimately, no such thing as a fossil out of place. The evogram is simply altered; punctuated equilibrium is invoked, and the Theory holds again.

So do you have another, but realistic, example of how Evolution Theory can be falsified?

 

You speak of testable proof. What is the testable proof for speciation? The premise that over millions of years one species will adapt to the point where it will become another species. Remember, Evolution posits that from some single-celled bacterium, down through the generations, homo sapien eventually evolved. Has that been "tested" in a lab somewhere? Evolution Theory posits that ALL life began with a Single Common Ancestor. Has that been tested in a lab? Has any evidence for the existence of this Single Common Ancestor been found, tested, and proven? Where has the scientific method actually been applied to these most fundamental premises of Evolution Theory? Can you show me where? You must know, because, as an agnostic, you would not believe in something that has not be shown to you to be so. Or at least I would hope so? Or do you just accept it because so many experts accept it? Is it truth merely by 'authority' for you?

Now, I am not saying this lack of evidence "disproves" anything, but let us remember the context of this thread. People become atheists because there is "no evidence" for God and furthermore that the God hypothesis cannot be tested, cannot be proved or disproved. Okay...

Have you ever applied those standards to the fundamental premises of Evolution Theory? Let's not bring in the biological sciences. That is true science. Their work can be proved and substantiated. I know Evolution likes to hide behind the coat-tails of real science such as biology, (and also likes to pretend that it is just as solid and proven as Gravitational Theory, but of course that is a lie), but let us focus on Evolution and not suggest that vaccines are discovered by Evolutionists. No, vaccines are discovered by biological scientists doing very excellent science work. We are talking about Evolution Theory here, about religion - what many of these biological scientists may happen to believe in their private religious life... that of course, we are all permitted to have - and what evidence you have for your religion.

A biological scientist working on a vaccine is allowed to believe in a god, just as a biological scientist working on a vaccine is allowed to believe the she and a chimp were descended from one common species. She knows there is no proof for god, but I hope she also knows there is no scientific evidence for that common ancestor: it only "exists" because it HAS TO exist for the Theory to be true.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3711
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:I suppose

Sockra Tease wrote:

I suppose it is more imprtant to know what YOU think ring species is/are if you are presenting them as scientific substantiation for Evolution Theory.

Eh....my definition for a ring species is the same as the rest of the scientific community. Any major research university should have the same definition as mine. Wikipedia too. There is no other official definition.

In a ring species, neighboring populations of the animal are still able to interbreed, but two or more populations at the opposite ends of the spectrum will not be able to interbreed with each other. This, thus, shows the process of speciation in real time, as speciation is when two populations can no longer interbreed. If you merely take out the populations in the middle, you effectively have two different species. That's my definition.

All I originally wanted was to know if you think this was occurring or not, as it is defined. Clearly, you don't, so a simple 'no' would have sufficed.

Quote:
Do you believe speciation is occurring, or is this really ONE species that, in an anomolous adapting process, adapts to a point where procreation is halted?

Uh, procreation is not halted any point. Every individual can still reproduce with other individuals in its population and neighboring population. Where are you getting this from? Do you have a source? 

Quote:
Are you arbitrarily naming the specias at one end of the ring Specias A and at the other end, Species B, and thereby claiming 'speciation'? If so, I find it unwhelming evidence as the differences at each end seem quite minimal in terms of categorization.

Huh? By definition, if two populations can no longer interbreed, then they are two different species. By definition, the two populations at the ends in a ring species cannot interbreed. Just say you don't agree that this exists, and we can move on to discussing evidence. Holy crap.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

You speak of testable proof. What is the testable proof for speciation? The premise that over millions of years one species will adapt to the point where it will become another species. Remember, Evolution posits that from some single-celled bacterium, down through the generations, homo sapien eventually evolved. Has that been "tested" in a lab somewhere? Evolution Theory posits that ALL life began with a Single Common Ancestor. Has that been tested in a lab? Has any evidence for the existence of this Single Common Ancestor been found, tested, and proven? Where has the scientific method actually been applied to these most fundamental premises of Evolution Theory? Can you show me where? You must know, because, as an agnostic, you would not believe in something that has not be shown to you to be so. Or at least I would hope so? Or do you just accept it because so many experts accept it? Is it truth merely by 'authority' for you?

 

 

Yeah - you're getting there. This is part of the ET hypothesis which is supported strongly but not, and perhaps never, without some questions over how it all happened and not without annoying holes in the data. At the same time you should concede it's the only theory collective with any empirical support. It's correct to highlight the questions that still exist in ET but to say an incomplete scientific hypothesis can only be a mythical religion is a fallacious false dilemma. Like all modifiable scientific hypotheses, ET is incomplete and only awaits your proof to be declared a complete failure.  

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sockra Tease

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Actually, I do believe the opposite.

Well you're wrong.

A belief held in carefully cultivated ignorance is not worthy of respect.

Sockra Tease wrote:

People believe Evolution is true because they are told, from a young age, it is true, and by the way, you will need many degrees in Science to prove it false, so don't bother.

There are many people with "many degrees" in science that have proven it thousands of time.   But you reject all evidence without even entertaining the possibility that they might know what they are talking about.   And you offer no convincing alternative.  Nothing that even remotely makes any logical sense.

Sockra Tease wrote:
The poison spreads: the fossil record betrays Evolution. Darwin's expectations were not met by the fossil record. He knew it in his lifetime before he passed away. It saddened him.

Prove this.   I want to know where you received this information.   Please present it.   It's utter bullshit.   And if you can not provide me, all of us on this forum, with the evidence to back up this statement, you are commiting a complete failure with this utter nonsense of a statement.

I will present evidence where the fossil record backs up Evolutionary Theory.   Intermediate fossils.   Those things you claim that don't exist.  Holy fuck.

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil that preserves an intermediate form between dinosaur and bird.

http://www.bartleby.com/86/0701.html

Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish from the late Devonian period. It is a transitional fossil fish with many features of tetrapods. It has both gills and lungs. It has wrists and digits; it's weight bearing.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Now, I know what your next creationist statement is going to be.   That somehow, beyond all rationality, these are not transitional fossils.

Please define for us right now what type of fossil you WOULD consider a transitional fossil.

The true answer for you, is absolutely no kind of fossil, ever, not matter what, would you ever consider transitional.

Sockra Tease wrote:
Evolution has given us nothing but myth. Evolution has made no predictions;

Do you know how flu shots work?   Do you know how they make pesticides or vaccinations?   Do you know how doctors fight HIV?   Do you know why doctors will give you not only one drug that kills staph infections but they give a combination of two or more drugs that each, alone, will kill staph?   Do you know why they do this?

Because they do it based on the established principles of the Theory of Evolution.   If you just dismiss this, refuse to investigate, dismiss it out of hand, you are being completely unreasonable, totally illogical, and you have an agenda.   You find the possibility of evolution being truth threatening.

Why?

I know why.   You think all species on this planet were created by a supreme being.   There is no other reason why you will steadfastly ignore all facts, evidence, and rationale that may undermine this cherished belief in your head.

Sockra Tease wrote:
It is like pretending that Hydrogen descended from Helium. Why do we need to have a descent myth like this? Is it not possible to have Helium, and Hydrogen and that is all? That is certainly all for Science. Sure, helium and hydrogen have "structural homology" - they both have electrons and protons. What do we infer from that? Descent? Why?

???

You do realize that our sun is turning hydrogen into helium right now, right?

The sun uses a series of nuclear reactions called the hydrogen cycle.

First, two protons hit each other and one is converted into a neutron and a positron. The proton and neutron cling together to make a deuterium nucleus. This is a standard nuclear reaction.

Then, another proton hits the deuterium nucleus. Now that nucleus has two protons and one neutron. This is a helium-3 nucleus.

Finally, two helium-3 nuclei hit each other. Two protons and two neutrons stick together to make a helium-4 nucleus. The other two protons fly away to enter into other reactions.

The net result is that six protons come together to make a helium nucleau (which has two protons and two neutrons), two positrons, and two protons.

The first reaction in this sequence is very slow and is why the sun is still shining after 5 billion years.

Other types of stars (red giants) use another sequence of nuclear reactions called the carbon cycle, but this doesn't happen in our sun.   Holy shit, dude.   You have access to the internet.   Fucking use it for more than making really retarded denials against established, proven science.   
Sockra Tease wrote:
The underlying inference of atheism is that thousands and thousands of scientists then and now who believe/ed in god are also stupid.
  No.   I don't think someone is stupid just because they believe in a god.   I think they are mistaken. My mother is highly intelligent and a devout Southern Baptist.   She's not stupid in the slightest.   But she's wrong about the god idea in my opinion.    

Sockra Tease wrote:
I really can't accept that.

 

 

Of course not.   No amount of proven facts, confirmed evidence, undeniable proof will be accepted by you.

 

 

Sockra Tease wrote:
There are many papers out there remarking on the chimp and man DNA homology. It is pretty darn close. Evolution says there is ONE, AND ONLY ONE explanation to account for this: common descent - descent from a common ancestor (as yet totally unevidenced in Nature. Unevidenced, but that's okay. We are told to just wait until the evidence arrives. Sound familiar? A borrow-over from Christianity maybe?).

 

 

No, we have the evidence.   You refuse to accept any of it.

Please posit your OTHER EXPLANATION.

 

 

Sockra Tease wrote:
Natural selection. Nature selected chimps with 24 pairs. Nature selected homo sapien with 23 pairs. Why is that not a solution?

 

 

Because...it...doesn't...explain anything.

How does that explain anything?   Nature selected what?   From what?   Where did humans originate from?   We're just here and have always been here?   The Earth formed 5 billion years ago and boom there were just humans from nowhere?

And across the way chimps magically just poofed into existence?

What?  Is this a joke?   Are you being serious?   This is the explanation that makes the most sense to you?

 

You say, "A belief held in carefully cultivated ignorance is not worthy of respect."

I agree wholegeartedly. What I am doing is simply examining Evolution Theory to see if it is worthy of respect (with regard to rationality that is).

 

You say, "There are many people with "many degrees" in science that have proven it thousands of time.   But you reject all evidence without even entertaining the possibility that they might know what they are talking about.   And you offer no convincing alternative.  Nothing that even remotely makes any logical sense."

I say that if you feel scholarly degrees prove truth, then how can you reject theism when many scholared experts are telling you, ex officio, that there is evidence for the claims of Christianity? I suspect the reality is that the "many degrees" doesn't really mean that much after all. You will decide what is truth, and anyones studied, and degree'ed in that truth is an expert saying the truth, and well, anyone with a degree in a subject you consider to be false ..well.. is just to be ignored. The argument to authority, except it is often the case that our religious beliefs determine, a priori, which degrees are valid or not.

And I have offered a very rational alternative, and it is an alternative the rests within Evolution Theory. It is an alternative that can allow Evolution Theory to stand, but it simply removes the Spaghetti Monsters. We simply have to, rationally, acknowledge that the premise of speciation is totally unevidenced. The mechanism for species diversity is not speciation, the mechanism is natural selection. In our case, natural selection created chimps that happen to have 99.9% DNA homology to us. Natural selection created homo sapien. Natural selection created the banana with 50% DNA homology to us. These are the plain facts, so let us stay with just the facts. We needn't invent a lineage and speciating process that requires the invention - with absolutely no evidence to back it up - of species that do not exist to fill the gap between chimp and man. There is no "gap" if we allow natural selection to create two independent species with very similar DNA. There: an alternative that doesn't invoke the supernatural. Don't you think that is more rational and more "scientific" than violating Occam's razor and inventing intermediate species that don't exist?

 

Now, if you think there is no problem with the fossil record, I wonder where your knowledge of Evolution Theory comes from. It is common knowledge that ET was modified to try to explain the problem of the fossil record. The whole basis for punctuated equilibrium is to try to explain why there is no steady distribution of fossils all the way from Single Common Ancestor to present. It is counter-evidence to Darwinism and Darwin knew it. It was a very, very big problem. Punctuated equilibrium is a way to ignore that problem. PE posits that life "poofs!" in spurts, not one big steady process. So there, once again, nothing can disprove Evolution Theory. We just have to modify the way ET "poofs! life" to ignore the contrary evidence.

As for presenting me with many examples of intermediate fossils. Oh please. That has been done before and it is where ET becomes utterly irrational. I know you can present many examples of intermediate fossils. Many many many examples. All you have to do is present a fossil, and CLAIM it is an intermediary fossil. The only, and I do mean ONLY indication of a fossil being internmediary is its place in the evogram for that species group. If the chimp had gone extinct 100,000 years ago, we would be calling their bones "intermediary" between man and Spaghetti Monster. There is absolutely NOTHING in any fossil DNA that proves "intermediariness". The only reason why chimp isn't an intermediary for us is because it is still alive. In ET the facts are made to fit the Theory. A species with gills and lungs. great. And you immediately infer it "descended" from a species with ... gills only? Okay. Good theory. here is an alternative: natural selection created a species with gills and lungs. No prior ancestors, just a mutation that made it through to "species" status. Guess what? Trillions of various mutations made it through.

When you look at the argumentation from Evolutionists, the comparison is striking. Fossils are being presented but with unsubstantiated claims attached to them. I'm afraid your intermediary fossils are no different to scholars presenting the 4 Gospels as historical documents that evidence the life and divinty of jesus Christ, a son of a god.

How do you counter that? Why of course, you say, "No. They may be historical documents, but they are legend-writings by evangelists who have a theological agenda to offer. There may be claims of divinity within them but that does not offer "proof" in the real world."

Well guess what? Evolution must abide by the same rules and standards. You may present me with fossils and add claims that these fossils prove descent from one species to another, but that is just inference being made by Theory adherents with an agenda to offer. Just as there is actually NO evidence intrinsic in the Gospels to prove divinity, as well, there is actually no scientific evidence within the fossil to substantiate speciation or "intermediariness". Thos are inferences placed upon the fossils. In both cases, the fossils and the Gospels, it is truth by assertion not truth by science.

Of course, it follows I can't tell you what a transitional fossil looks like since I do not adhere to the religion that suggests such a transition took place. Just as you can't tell me what the common ancestor for chimp and man looks like, because there has never been any evidence for its existence. I also can't tell you how many meals a day the Spaghetti Monster eats. So I guess, I can't disprove a Shaghetti Monster exists, so it appears, by these new rules of Science, I have just accidentally proven the Spaghetti Monster exists??

 

Flu shots and vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution Theory, just as Evolution Theory is not like Graviational Theory. Flu shots and vaccines are the products of proper, rational, scientific investigations done by biological scientists. Evolution is a theory about mythical creatures and an unevidenced speciation mechanism: those elents do not impact on proper science. I find it curious that such a sense of insecurity is beginning to form in the Evolution Theory camp that it must resort to these tactics - which is to say, try to give Evolution credibility by trying to associate it with Gravity Theory or the wonderful work of vaccine technology. Truth by association. That tells me, very slowly, more people are seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

 

 

"...

You do realize that our sun is turning hydrogen into helium right now, right?

The sun uses a series of nuclear reactions called the hydrogen cycle..."

Yes. I do realize the Sun does this. But it is a process evidenced in nature. I do not pretend a procreation has occurred. I do not need to call helium the descendent of hydrogen.

 

 

"... No amount of proven facts, confirmed evidence, undeniable proof will be accepted by you..."

Just the opposite is so. Evidence does convince me. Where is it? I'm told the existence of so many churches and so many believers is evidence that god exists and the Bible is true. Do you think that is a good argument? The people, the believers, are not fictional so they indeed are true. The churches are real, evidenced, buildings, so they are true. Does that mean the argument is good and sound? If you feel not, I suspect it would come down to the fact that even though the details of the argument can''t be faulted - the people, the churches - it simply is too big a leap to go from those real details to that final inference about god.

So with Evolution. The fossils details are true. The DNA homology is true. These are real evidenced facts in nature. But what of the inferences we put upon them? Do they hold?

This is the problem with Evolution Theory. Just as churches don't prove god, DNA homology does not prove descent from a different species.

We have no evidence for Adam and Eve; we have no evidence for a Single Common Ancestor. These things are being ASSERTED to be true, because within our personal, private, respective religions, these things MUST BE TRUE if our dogma is to satnd firm.

 

I responded with an explantion as to why abiogenesis created chimp and man by natural selection. Your response was curious. you said:

"...

Because...it...doesn't...explain anything.

How does that explain anything?   Nature selected what?   From what?   Where did humans originate from?   We're just here and have always been here?   The Earth formed 5 billion years ago and boom there were just humans from nowhere?

And across the way chimps magically just poofed into existence?

What?  Is this a joke?   Are you being serious?   This is the explanation that makes the most sense to you?"

 

This is fantastic! I am in total agreement with you. You are saying, is this a joke?? How does 'natural selection' explain anything here???

I agree. Problem for you is... that is exactly what Evolution Theory is saying. Ask Richard Dawkins what the explanation for life is. His answer will be: "natural selection. you do not need a god people, natural selection explains everything."

So you see, I am with you on this: I don't think natural selection explains anything, anything at all. It is just a description phrase and all it "describes" is: 'A' exists, and it exists after a time when 'A' didn't exist. This is what "natural selection" EXPLAINS, and for Dawkins, and ET, this does indeed explain it all. If you are an Evolutionist you must accept "natural selection" as an explantion, so when I say that chimp formed by natural selection, and man formed by natural selection, well, I'm afraid per ET, you simply must accept that.

And as for "poofing!" Well that comes straight out of Evolution Theory too, so you must accept it. There are only two explanations for abiogenesis from within Evolution Theory. Darwin's hypothesis and the more modified hypothesis that stands now. the more modern hypothesis is... well... guess what? .... yep.... natural selection. Life simply just got "poof-selected!" out of nowhere. Does that satisfy you as a scientific theory? If not maybe you should make some inquiries about what these experts are really telling you to believe?

 

By the way, Darwin's original hypothesis for abiogenesis was that the first species had life breathed into it by a Creator. That comes straight out of a book he wrote called the Origin of Species. Again, does that sound like science to you? How can you be an agnostic when even Darwin pointed suggestively to a god? Because there is no evidence that god "poofed" us into existence? But you claim there is evidence from Evolution about how we got here - from inorganic to organic?

 

I am a long way from working out what might possibly "make sense" for abiogenesis. First I need to get around my brain what possible process could turn inorganic matter to organic matter. That seems to be the first step. I find it hard to believe that other folks before me have actually solved this conundrum. That news would have been an earth-shattering sensation, and I can't find anywhere where that sensational thing happened. But when I go to look at these 'solutions' all I come up with are the three main "poof!" theories in existence: theism, deism and Evolution and they each invoke a "poof!"-god for abiogenesis: God, Yahweh or Selection.

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

I am a long way from working out what might possibly "make sense" for abiogenesis. First I need to get around my brain what possible process could turn inorganic matter to organic matter. That seems to be the first step. I find it hard to believe that other folks before me have actually solved this conundrum. That news would have been an earth-shattering sensation, and I can't find anywhere where that sensational thing happened. But when I go to look at these 'solutions' all I come up with are the three main "poof!" theories in existence: theism, deism and Evolution and they each invoke a "poof!"-god for abiogenesis: God, Yahweh or Selection.

 

 

abiogenesis is a great mystery. To me, given self replicating biochemical systems we label as living are made entirely of familiar molecules, it seems life is of earth and at some point in the far past conditions allowing the development of XNA, RNA and DNA led to the formation of biochemical ecosystems. How this happened is beyond our knowledge. We don't even know how proteins communicate across the cytoplasm much less how the cytoplasm formed.

Still - there are now developments that allow imaging of the fundamental workings of living cells and I expect over the next 500 years, suicidal hypothetical first cause lovers and weather permitting, we will increase our understanding of the nature and development of life a good deal more. If, during this time, it's conversely proved that at the centre of the galaxy on a La-Z-boy armchair watching the Cronulla Sharks playing the Bulldogs reclines the master of the universe, I'll cheerily go down to St Stephens and crack out the Scottish Psalter. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Sockra

butterbattle wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

I suppose it is more imprtant to know what YOU think ring species is/are if you are presenting them as scientific substantiation for Evolution Theory.

Eh....my definition for a ring species is the same as the rest of the scientific community. Any major research university should have the same definition as mine. Wikipedia too. There is no other official definition.

In a ring species, neighboring populations of the animal are still able to interbreed, but two or more populations at the opposite ends of the spectrum will not be able to interbreed with each other. This, thus, shows the process of speciation in real time, as speciation is when two populations can no longer interbreed. If you merely take out the populations in the middle, you effectively have two different species. That's my definition.

All I originally wanted was to know if you think this was occurring or not, as it is defined. Clearly, you don't, so a simple 'no' would have sufficed.

Quote:
Do you believe speciation is occurring, or is this really ONE species that, in an anomolous adapting process, adapts to a point where procreation is halted?

Uh, procreation is not halted any point. Every individual can still reproduce with other individuals in its population and neighboring population. Where are you getting this from? Do you have a source? 

Quote:
Are you arbitrarily naming the specias at one end of the ring Specias A and at the other end, Species B, and thereby claiming 'speciation'? If so, I find it unwhelming evidence as the differences at each end seem quite minimal in terms of categorization.

Huh? By definition, if two populations can no longer interbreed, then they are two different species. By definition, the two populations at the ends in a ring species cannot interbreed. Just say you don't agree that this exists, and we can move on to discussing evidence. Holy crap.

 

So, on the basis of interbreeding you are declaring the species at the one end of the ring to be a completely different species at the other end? Has this process added any genetic information to one end or the other? Is there any other basis for declaring them then a "different" species? Does the ring species become anything other than a ring species?

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

You speak of testable proof. What is the testable proof for speciation? The premise that over millions of years one species will adapt to the point where it will become another species. Remember, Evolution posits that from some single-celled bacterium, down through the generations, homo sapien eventually evolved. Has that been "tested" in a lab somewhere? Evolution Theory posits that ALL life began with a Single Common Ancestor. Has that been tested in a lab? Has any evidence for the existence of this Single Common Ancestor been found, tested, and proven? Where has the scientific method actually been applied to these most fundamental premises of Evolution Theory? Can you show me where? You must know, because, as an agnostic, you would not believe in something that has not be shown to you to be so. Or at least I would hope so? Or do you just accept it because so many experts accept it? Is it truth merely by 'authority' for you?

Yeah - you're getting there. This is part of the ET hypothesis which is supported strongly but not, and perhaps never, without some questions over how it all happened and not without annoying holes in the data. At the same time you should concede it's the only theory collective with any empirical support. It's correct to highlight the questions that still exist in ET but to say an incomplete scientific hypothesis can only be a mythical religion is a fallacious false dilemma. Like all modifiable scientific hypotheses, ET is incomplete and only awaits your proof to be declared a complete failure.  

Thanks for that. And yes there are holes and the holes give me a problem. I have the greatest respect for Darwin. I think he came across some wonderful intuitions of the world and lo and behold the world had evidence to substantiate them. There are problems, and he even knew such before he died.

I am not using them to ditch the whole thing in the garbage bin, as that would be going over-board, but I just wonder if we go over-board in the other direction with our infernces as well. We have abundant proof for adaptation. The proof for an originating Single Common Ancestor? That is why I have focussed on that antecedent species between chimp and man: it is the closest to us, so one would expect the fossils to be "near the surface" so to speak, and it is the closest to us existentially of course - it is the reason we are here!

It just disturbs me when folks argue that there is no god because there is no evidence for such, and yet go on to declare something else exists but for which there is no evidence. (Not because I want to sneak god back, but just that I think our reasoning should be consistent. If there is no evidence for god, well fine. Okay. But if there is no evidence for X, well...??). It seems to me the common ancestor between chimp and man is the best example.

ET as adaption theory holds up well. ET as speciation from a SCA I find to be so weak it needs to removed back from "scientific hypothesis" to logical hypothesis". In other words, it is not Jabberwocky, and it makes internal sense but, externally, that the purported evidence does not point to it. I refer to my crime example: gun registration does not prove the owner committed the murder. EVEN if we say, "well.. doesn't that POINT to the owner as being the murderer.." I think we need to be careful. Yes, there have been instances in the past where the murderer has indeed been the gun owner, but in this case does the evidence really point to him?

I know some may feel these are useless, pointless, stupid asides that don't deal with ET, but as you can imagine, I am trying to get at the criteria we use to SUGGEST that a piece of evidence does point to something. The gun ownership ONLY POINTS to a relation between a person and a gun. It in no way points to a relation between the gun owner and the murder. Other evidence is needed for that. I am suggesting that the fossil evidence points to a relation between species A and species B, but it in no way points to a relation of speciation. Speciation is the "murder" here. Separate and compelling proof is need to relate these species to this process of speciation. Gun ownership doesn't do it; DNA homology doesn't do it.

For me, religion involves the invocation of the supernatural. I believe ET is doing this when it tries to suggest it has "solved" abiogenesis with natural selection and the SCA magically appearing out of nowhere. I just feel ET needs to scale back and be more rational rather than "evangelical".

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease wrote:And I

Sockra Tease wrote:

And I have offered a very rational alternative, and it is an alternative the rests within Evolution Theory.

NO.  YOU HAVE NOT.

You said "nature selected a chimp to be a chimp".  Of course not the same words.  But all you say is that speciation doesn't happen.

So where did the first chimp come from?  You don't say.

Why won't you tell us your personal anwer for that?  You say it didn't come from some ancestral species, it's always been a chimp with slight microevolutionary changes.  

So where did they come from?

Why were there no chimps 10 million years ago?

Why were there no mammals 400 million years ago?

Why were there no land animals at all 600 million years ago?

Where are these species coming from?

Tell me.

Where is this "rational" explanation?

Quit skirting the issue and just blurt it out.

Sockra Tease wrote:

The mechanism for species diversity is not speciation, the mechanism is natural selection. In our case, natural selection created chimps that happen to have 99.9% DNA homology to us. Natural selection created homo sapien. Natural selection created the banana with 50% DNA homology to us. These are the plain facts, so let us stay with just the facts. We needn't invent a lineage and speciating process that requires the invention - with absolutely no evidence to back it up - of species that do not exist to fill the gap between chimp and man. There is no "gap" if we allow natural selection to create two independent species with very similar DNA. There: an alternative that doesn't invoke the supernatural. Don't you think that is more rational and more "scientific" than violating Occam's razor and inventing intermediate species that don't exist?

HOW!?!?!?

How did we go from single celled organisms being the only living things on the planet 3 billion years ago to having all the species of animals and plants today???

?????

There is no explanation coming from you.  "The mechanism for species diveristy is not speciation"?   Then Homo sapiens did not come from an ancestral species?

Then where were we 100 million years ago?

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

Now, if you think there is no problem with the fossil record, I wonder where your knowledge of Evolution Theory comes from.

Scientific literature. 

Sockra Tease wrote:

It is common knowledge that ET was modified to try to explain the problem of the fossil record. The whole basis for punctuated equilibrium is to try to explain why there is no steady distribution of fossils all the way from Single Common Ancestor to present. It is counter-evidence to Darwinism and Darwin knew it. It was a very, very big problem. Punctuated equilibrium is a way to ignore that problem. PE posits that life "poofs!" in spurts, not one big steady process. So there, once again, nothing can disprove Evolution Theory. We just have to modify the way ET "poofs! life" to ignore the contrary evidence.

No poof.  Species, when they are evolved for a certain niche where habitat, food source, and predation is the same have little selection pressure.  They stay the same sometimes for millions of years.

If the jungle a species lives in stays a jungle, everything is fine and dandy.

If climate changes and the jungle starts shrinking and gives way to grass land the species is faced with serious selection pressure.  They must adapt or die.  So they go through a rapid change.  Punctuated equilibrium.  Until the species is suited to fill a niche in the new environment.

Sockra Tease wrote:

As for presenting me with many examples of intermediate fossils. Oh please. That has been done before and it is where ET becomes utterly irrational.

Yeah, ok.  Nothing but fish at 600 million years ago, then 400 million years ago there are amphibian like creatures.

If we find a fossil 500 million years ago that has characteristics of both then that is "irrational" to conclude it was an intermediate species?

Sockra Tease wrote:

If the chimp had gone extinct 100,000 years ago, we would be calling their bones "intermediary" between man and Spaghetti Monster.

No we wouldn't.  Homo sapiens already existed 100,000 years ago. 

Sockra Tease wrote:

natural selection created a species with gills and lungs. No prior ancestors, just a mutation that made it through to "species" status. Guess what? Trillions of various mutations made it through.

Created how???

What the...   What?   Where did it come from?   How did it create it?

Sockra Tease wrote:

I can't tell you what a transitional fossil looks like since I do not adhere to the religion that suggests such a transition took place. Just as you can't tell me what the common ancestor for chimp and man looks like, because there has never been any evidence for its existence. 

 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2009/09/ardi-recon440.jpg

Sockra Tease wrote:

Flu shots and vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution Theory,

 

"Each year, many of us get vaccine shots for the influenza virus. If we are vaccinated one year against the flu, why do we have to get vaccinated the next year? The answer is, simply, because of evolution. The flu virus reproduces very quickly, accumulating genetic mutations rapidly, leading to many slightly different strains of the flu. This year’s flu vaccine makes us immune to some strains, but the mutations in other strains make these strains different enough that our vaccine-induced immunity is ineffective against them. These resistant strains quickly spread and reproduce, and will become next year’s dominant flu strain. So, the flu vaccine that you get this year will not work next year, because evolution by natural selection will have produced new flu strains that require new vaccines."
 

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/programs/evolution/evolutioneveryday.html

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

Just the opposite is so. Evidence does convince me.

Whooo.  What color is the sky in your world? 

Sockra Tease wrote:

And as for "poofing!" Well that comes straight out of Evolution Theory too, so you must accept it. There are only two explanations for abiogenesis from within Evolution Theory. Darwin's hypothesis and the more modified hypothesis that stands now. the more modern hypothesis is... well... guess what? .... yep.... natural selection. Life simply just got "poof-selected!" out of nowhere. Does that satisfy you as a scientific theory? If not maybe you should make some inquiries about what these experts are really telling you to believe?

"Study Builds On Plausible Scenario for Origin of Life On Earth

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2011) — A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry.

The study shows how the precursors to RNA could have formed on Earth before any life existed. It was authored by Jason E. Hein, Eric Tse and Donna G. Blackmond, a team of researchers with the Scripps Research Institute. Hein is now a chemistry professor with University of California, Merced.

Biological molecules, such as RNA and proteins, can exist in either a natural or unnatural form, called enantiomers. By studying the chemical reactions carefully, the research team found that it was possible to generate only the natural form of the necessary RNA precursors by including simple amino acids.

"These amino acids changed how the reactions work and allowed only the naturally occurring RNA precursors to be generated in a stable form," said Hein. "In the end, we showed that an amazingly simple result emerged from some very complex and interconnected chemistry."

The natural enantiomer of the RNA precursor molecules formed a crystal structure visible to the naked eye. The crystals are stable and avoid normal chemical breakdown. They can exist until the conditions are right for them to change into RNA."

No "poof".

Sockra Tease wrote:

By the way, Darwin's original hypothesis for abiogenesis was that the first species had life breathed into it by a Creator. That comes straight out of a book he wrote called the Origin of Species. Again, does that sound like science to you? How can you be an agnostic when even Darwin pointed suggestively to a god? 

What do I care about Darwin?  He can go piss up a rope for all I care.  The only thing I care about Darwin is that he got the ball rolling.

We know more about evolutionary theory now than Darwin could have ever imagined.  I don't care what supernatural superstitions he had back in the 1800's. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Sockra Tease

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

And I have offered a very rational alternative, and it is an alternative the rests within Evolution Theory.

NO.  YOU HAVE NOT.

You said "nature selected a chimp to be a chimp".  Of course not the same words.  But all you say is that speciation doesn't happen.

So where did the first chimp come from?  You don't say.

Why won't you tell us your personal anwer for that?  You say it didn't come from some ancestral species, it's always been a chimp with slight microevolutionary changes.  

So where did they come from?

Why were there no chimps 10 million years ago?

Why were there no mammals 400 million years ago?

Why were there no land animals at all 600 million years ago?

Where are these species coming from?

Tell me.

Where is this "rational" explanation?

Quit skirting the issue and just blurt it out.

If you want me to say God, I won't because as I have said before I do not know where Life started. But I am a rationalist. Unlike Evolutionists, I don't pretend I know, and then claim my pretense is scientific fact.

Where did chimp come from? Chimp was created by abiogenesis. We don't really know when, but the fossil record can tell us a rough timeframe when they roamed the earth, and if they still exists around the traps, well, then they haven't gone extinct...yet. That is it. Period. That is what science tells us. We can do biology studies on the fossils and the live chimps and get lots more knoowledge, but any talk of common ancestors is just speculation, it is not science. The fact that no one can present evidence of the ancestor that links chimp with man is very telling. It tells me there is no science for this common ancestor but it also tells me, sadly, that the rules of science have changed and things which are not evidenced are now permitted to be called scientific fact. It is a rule change that allows religion to be deemed science. I seem to be the only one who cares if the well of Science is poisoned this way. Fine.

Natural selection is my alternative. You don't like it because it explains nothing. I agree. It explains nothing. You should take that matter up with your fellow Evolutionists who tell us that is nonsense: natural selection explains everything! (Be careful how you approach them on this, as they think you are a Creationist for raising doubts!)

My explanation is rational as it sticks to the facts we really do know. I realize you think it is irrational because it goes back to a point of abiogenesis (of chimp), that is as yet unexplained, and you thereby say that my position is irrational. Okay fine; let's compare mine with the Evolutionist position, shall we?

"Where did chimp cpme from?". Evolution answers thus:

1) Chimp descended from a common ancestor to chimp and man.

Where did this common ancestor come from?

2) This ancestor came from another common ancestor that gave birth to it and another ancestor of the ape.

Okay. Where did this previous common ancestor come from?

3) It came from yet another common ancestor that gave birth to another two species.

Okay. Where did that previous... wait a minute.. just how far back are we going with these common ancestors?

4) We go by a linear descent of speciation as far back as the Single Common Ancestor that started it all.

Okay then. Let's cut to the the quick: back behind all these ancestors (that the fossil record appears to betray!) where does this Single Common Ancestor come from?

5) It got "poofed!" into existence.

 

So.... my explanation is irrational because chimp got "poofed" into existence by abiogenesis, but your explanation that simply puts this "poof" way, way, way, way, back in Time to a mythical SCA is suddenly more rational? Is that your argument?

And it follows, you think that the creation of trillions of mythical common ancestors unevidenced in the fossil record is more rational and closer to the "facts" than my explanation?

I don't believe in gods and angels. When I left theism I thought I left those things behind; if I take up Evolution however it appears the gods are still left behind, but a whole host of commonly descending Angels have returned!? Humans seem to have a hard time living without religion. The psychology of today appears to be to adopt atheism, but sneak myth in the back door by calling it Science. Again, I am not surprised the Vatican loves Evolution Theory. If mythical ancestors exist, can Biblical angels be that far behind?

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

The mechanism for species diversity is not speciation, the mechanism is natural selection. In our case, natural selection created chimps that happen to have 99.9% DNA homology to us. Natural selection created homo sapien. Natural selection created the banana with 50% DNA homology to us. These are the plain facts, so let us stay with just the facts. We needn't invent a lineage and speciating process that requires the invention - with absolutely no evidence to back it up - of species that do not exist to fill the gap between chimp and man. There is no "gap" if we allow natural selection to create two independent species with very similar DNA. There: an alternative that doesn't invoke the supernatural. Don't you think that is more rational and more "scientific" than violating Occam's razor and inventing intermediate species that don't exist?

HOW!?!?!?

How did we go from single celled organisms being the only living things on the planet 3 billion years ago to having all the species of animals and plants today???

?????

There is no explanation coming from you.  "The mechanism for species diveristy is not speciation"?   Then Homo sapiens did not come from an ancestral species?

Then where were we 100 million years ago?

If we want to be scientific, it is safer to deduce that 3 billion years ago the conditions incurred single-celled organisms. Maybe the climate was so harsh, a comlpex multi-celled structure would not survive. Maybe it didn't survive: maybe abiogenesis tried to create but the 2-celled species had a life-span of a nanosecond. Not much left to fossilize. We have to face it that 3 billion years ago..we just weren't there and have to surmise. The only key to the past is solving the mystery of abiogenesis, not dreaming up species that don't exist. That just muddies the waters for real Science. You load the question by saying "go from". There is no evidence in Nature that any species "went from" one species to another. We don't "go from". Abiogenesis is Life-Creation: a force that creates life in trillions upon trillions of forms. The reason why all forms don't suddenly appear at once is that certain forms appear for certain environmental conditions. If we look at how hominids were grouped, and look at how dinosaurs et. al. were grouped, in their repective time frames, then we see that abiogenesis "pushes out" life all the time, with different species at different times. If Earth goes into a boil-down then homo sapien (notwithstanding artificial ways of keeping us alive) will go extinct, but I suspect abiogenesis will still be around and we will see new species, more suited to very hot climates, cropping up. They won't have descended from anything. They will grow like grass from "DNA soil" using the mechanism(s) of abiogenesis - mechanism still to be discovered by real scientists: biologists. I'll accept as "just a theory" that they may arrive by speciation, but you first have to show me evidence in Nature of speciation as a mechanism. Remember, life "poofing" out of nowhere is a premise that Evolution Theory accepts wholeheartedly: that's how the SCA arrived.

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Now, if you think there is no problem with the fossil record, I wonder where your knowledge of Evolution Theory comes from.

Scientific literature.

Evolution Theory is a theory. It has no scientific literature. Biology is the science. All scienctific literature rests with biology. Evolution Theory only has evograms and cartoons and assertions claiming to be facts.

 

Watcher wrote:

Created how???

What the...   What?   Where did it come from?   How did it create it?

Neither I nor Evolution Theory can answer that question. Some dishonest proponents of ET, possibly Dawkins included, have suggested that 'natural selection' explains how. I find that to be utterly unsatisfactory.

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

I can't tell you what a transitional fossil looks like since I do not adhere to the religion that suggests such a transition took place. Just as you can't tell me what the common ancestor for chimp and man looks like, because there has never been any evidence for its existence. 

 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/files/2009/09/ardi-recon440.jpg

Oh okay. Cartoons as scientific proof. Here is what God looks like:

http://homeequityloancompare.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1312039894-28.gif

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Flu shots and vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution Theory,

 

"Each year, many of us get vaccine shots for the influenza virus. If we are vaccinated one year against the flu, why do we have to get vaccinated the next year? The answer is, simply, because of evolution. The flu virus reproduces very quickly, accumulating genetic mutations rapidly, leading to many slightly different strains of the flu. This year’s flu vaccine makes us immune to some strains, but the mutations in other strains make these strains different enough that our vaccine-induced immunity is ineffective against them. These resistant strains quickly spread and reproduce, and will become next year’s dominant flu strain. So, the flu vaccine that you get this year will not work next year, because evolution by natural selection will have produced new flu strains that require new vaccines."
 

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/programs/evolution/evolutioneveryday.html 

And did you read the explanation of 'natural selection'? It speaks only to adaptation "within a population". Nothing there speaks to speciation and adaptation allowing species to "jump the tracks" and adapt into an entirely different species. That would require separate proof of course. We are all still waiting. That is the dishonesty of Evolution Theory: it tries to sneak speciation as fact under the skirt of adaptation. "We certainly can evidence adaptation, "so therefore" speciation has just been proven!!!". No deal folks. Speciation is a different hypothesis to adaptation. It needs separate proof.

Biology gave us the vaccines. Not common ancestor mythologies.

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Just the opposite is so. Evidence does convince me.

Whooo.  What color is the sky in your world?

Good question. I'll use scientific method to find out...

I just looked: it's rather blue today.

If I asked you the same question, would you do the same? Or would you "google"  the word 'sky' and let the experts tell you what to believe?

"Google". The Atheist's Bible.

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

And as for "poofing!" Well that comes straight out of Evolution Theory too, so you must accept it. There are only two explanations for abiogenesis from within Evolution Theory. Darwin's hypothesis and the more modified hypothesis that stands now. the more modern hypothesis is... well... guess what? .... yep.... natural selection. Life simply just got "poof-selected!" out of nowhere. Does that satisfy you as a scientific theory? If not maybe you should make some inquiries about what these experts are really telling you to believe?

"Study Builds On Plausible Scenario for Origin of Life On Earth

ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2011) — A relatively simple combination of naturally occurring sugars and amino acids offers a plausible route to the building blocks of life, according to a paper published in Nature Chemistry.

The study shows how the precursors to RNA could have formed on Earth before any life existed. It was authored by Jason E. Hein, Eric Tse and Donna G. Blackmond, a team of researchers with the Scripps Research Institute. Hein is now a chemistry professor with University of California, Merced.

Biological molecules, such as RNA and proteins, can exist in either a natural or unnatural form, called enantiomers. By studying the chemical reactions carefully, the research team found that it was possible to generate only the natural form of the necessary RNA precursors by including simple amino acids.

"These amino acids changed how the reactions work and allowed only the naturally occurring RNA precursors to be generated in a stable form," said Hein. "In the end, we showed that an amazingly simple result emerged from some very complex and interconnected chemistry."

The natural enantiomer of the RNA precursor molecules formed a crystal structure visible to the naked eye. The crystals are stable and avoid normal chemical breakdown. They can exist until the conditions are right for them to change into RNA."

No "poof".

I agree. No poof. But this is science. Nothing in that citation speaks to wild, speculative Evolution Magic. This is a study in relation to abiogenesis. It is a shame people confuse good science with the myth of common ancestry.

 

Watcher wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

By the way, Darwin's original hypothesis for abiogenesis was that the first species had life breathed into it by a Creator. That comes straight out of a book he wrote called the Origin of Species. Again, does that sound like science to you? How can you be an agnostic when even Darwin pointed suggestively to a god? 

What do I care about Darwin?  He can go piss up a rope for all I care.  The only thing I care about Darwin is that he got the ball rolling.

We know more about evolutionary theory now than Darwin could have ever imagined.  I don't care what supernatural superstitions he had back in the 1800's. 

I suspect Darwin would be shocked that his analysis has been turned into superstition. People who value Science, value Darwin. Evidently you have moved on to Dawkins instead. Why not admit it? You're not an atheist; you've just swapped religions.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Note well...

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

I suspect Darwin would be shocked that his analysis has been turned into superstition. People who value Science, value Darwin. Evidently you have moved on to Dawkins instead. Why not admit it? You're not an atheist; you've just swapped religions.

 

Definition of Scientific Hypothesis

 

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. 

 

Definition of Religion

 

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

 

Both these definitions are from wiki. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckles to self

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

Evolution Theory is a theory. It has no scientific literature. Biology is the science. All scienctific literature rests with biology. Evolution Theory only has evograms and cartoons and assertions claiming to be facts.

 

 

A scientific theory is a collection of mutually supporting scientific hypotheses across multiple disciplines. Biology (bio, archeo and micro), geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology - ET ticks all these boxes. 

You clearly think abiogenesis is simpler than genetic speciation and happened for all species one at a time? All 9 million Eukaryote species were subject to abiogenesis and then appeared more or less fully formed?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

I suspect Darwin would be shocked that his analysis has been turned into superstition. People who value Science, value Darwin. Evidently you have moved on to Dawkins instead. Why not admit it? You're not an atheist; you've just swapped religions.

Definition of Scientific Hypothesis

 

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Yes indeed. Can you tell me how, and when really, the scientific method was applied to speciation theory? And ET posits a common ancestor at the point of originial abiogenesis (the SCA). What test was done to substantiate that? Given that there have been absolutely no observations of the chimp/man common ancestor nor discovered fossils, what observations and/or tests have been done on this common ancestor to move it from wild, unsubstantiated hypothesis to scientifific fact? By this definition, where is the actual SCIENCE - the science of obsrvations and testing - for Evolution Theory? All Evolution Theory has is evograms and cartoons. Where are the tests?

The best evidence presented so far has been the ring species. A species that begins as ring species and ends as ring species with no new genetic information added. This is presented as evidence of speciation!?!?? This allows us to posit, as proven fact! - that homo sapien descended from a single-celled bacterium?

 

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

Definition of Religion

 

Religion is a collection of cultural systems {1}, belief systems {2}, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.{3} Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories {4} that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.{5} They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

 

 

Both these definitions are from wiki. 

{1} ET certainly qualifies as a cultural system. Millions have been indoctrinated into it.

{2} Given the astonishing lack of scientific backup, it qualifies as a belief system.

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

{4} Evograms and cartoons are the symbols; speciation, common ancestry, and poofing Single Common Ancestry are the narratives.

{5} Blind, amoral 'natural selection' is posited as the meaning to/for Life.

{6} Atheism and amorality is the derived lifestyle based on the proposition that lack of evidence for Hypothesis A thereby proves hypothesis B to be true. A fallacy though. Nature is pure, blind accident. That is all.

 

I stand by my claim: Evolution Theory qualifies as religion. The total lack of scientific evidence, testing, verification, provability AND falsifiability being the overwhelming evidence.

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Well this is going to be my

Well this is going to be my last post in this discussion.  I've argued with too many creationists to beat my head against a brick wall forever.

You contradict yourself about natural selection sometimes saying that natural selection explains life not evolution but never admit or seem to realize that natural selection is a very important part of evolution.

You say mysterious and really ludicrous things like chimps came from abiogenesis which is...   my brain just fell out.

You called a reconstruction drawing of Ardipithecus meticulously based on fossilized skeletons as a cartoon...

That's not a cartoon.  It's more of a photorealistic drawing.  You don't even know different drawing styles(ok, beside the point but I'm a fan of cartoons and I draw photorealism so it's a touchy point).

You say asinine things like there are no transitional fossils no matter how many are presented.

You demand unreasonable levels of evidence that no rational human would demand of any subject anywhere.

DNA soil?  Chimps came from DNA soil?  WTF?

You say even more ridiculous things such as common medical treatments like flu shots are not derived from evolutionary theory but biological science...  *SIGH*  Biological science is based on Evolutionary theory.

It's like saying that Boeing 757's fly because they have wings not because of aerodynamics.

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

I can't even have a logical discussion with you because you are not being logical.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Well this is

Watcher wrote:

Well this is going to be my last post in this discussion.  I've argued with too many creationists to beat my head against a brick wall forever.

You contradict yourself about natural selection sometimes saying that natural selection explains life not evolution but never admit or seem to realize that natural selection is a very important part of evolution.

You say mysterious and really ludicrous things like chimps came from abiogenesis which is...   my brain just fell out.

You called a reconstruction drawing of Ardipithecus meticulously based on fossilized skeletons as a cartoon...

That's not a cartoon.  It's more of a photorealistic drawing.  You don't even know different drawing styles(ok, beside the point but I'm a fan of cartoons and I draw photorealism so it's a touchy point).

You say asinine things like there are no transitional fossils no matter how many are presented.

You demand unreasonable levels of evidence that no rational human would demand of any subject anywhere.

DNA soil?  Chimps came from DNA soil?  WTF?

You say even more ridiculous things such as common medical treatments like flu shots are not derived from evolutionary theory but biological science...  *SIGH*  Biological science is based on Evolutionary theory.

It's like saying that Boeing 757's fly because they have wings not because of aerodynamics.

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

I can't even have a logical discussion with you because you are not being logical.

The usual tactic I encounter is to just be labelled a "creationist" and then dismissed. Fine. Go for it. Anyone reading this thread can see you are simply running away.

That you would argue that I have never said that natural selection is an important part of Evolution Theory is just ridiculous. I have several times stated that natural selection is an important part of Evolution Theory. I have even used it to provide an "Evolution" explanation for the DNA homology between chimp and man. Of course it is important.

Why is chimp abiogenesis more ridiculous than SCA abiogenesis? Do you have a rational ground to make the distinction? We seem to just disagree as to which species went "poof!". You really don't see the irrationality of your position: that chimp descended from a common ancestor species for which we have absolutely no evidence that it existed? This is rational to you? This is Science for you? Wasn't the reason God was thrown out of science because there was no evidence for that being to exist? Why does this common ancestor get a free pass from you? This is a rational question I ask of you; it is a question about standards of evidence.

No offense intended about cartoons. In their milieu they are great and some reach a level of high Art. But why do they appear in the place of scientific evidence? Is that the role of cartoon work? To show us what a mythical common ancestor would look like while we wait for real evidence?

You  can call it ridiculous, but claiming a fossil is an intermediary requires scientific testing. Agreed? How do you scientifically test "intermediariness"? I contend you don't and you can't. You can only assert that a fossil is intermediary. Evolution makes the facts fit the Theory; it should be the other way round. Would you allow me to bring God back into science by merely asserting he does exist? What if I argued, only God could create this universe, so therefore he MUST exist, and if he must exist, it logically follows that he DOES exist; and so, we can scientificially PROVE that God exists. Would you accept that argument? No? Well I hope not. I certainly wouldn't accept it as an argument in science. It is ridiculous, of course. You can't argue that something exists merely because you assert it MUST exist. Now.... have a look at Evolution: these common ancestors, for which there is no scientific evidence, are asserted to exist - they simply MUST exist or the Theory falls down. We can't have the Theory fall down so these ancestors simply MUST exist, therefore they DO exist. There you go! Neat and tidy. A scientific proof that Evolution Theory is right and solid. Again, why do these common ancestors, without evidence, get a free pass from being subjected to the plain rules and tests of science? The "experts", when really put up against the wall on this point finally concede, "well we are very sure that one day the evidence will arise." Well... can't a Christian argue that even though scientific evidence for God doesn't exist, one day, we shall find out and there will be evidence? Why are Evolutionists allowed to put the evidence-discovery into the future, and thereby klet the hypothesis stand, and yet others are not?

And this is what you want to call Science now?

I do not demand an unreasonable anmount of evidence from Evolution Theory. I demand SCIENTIFIC evidence. If you took your Evolution blinders off and looked at Evolution Theory from scratch, you just might begin to see the problems I see.

As for "DNA soil", well really. I put quote marks around that phrase because it should be seen as a metaphor. I don't know where Life comes from. No one does. In place of evidence we use metaphors. Unlike Evolution Theory though, I don't pretend my metaphors are scientific facts. Solve abiogenesis first, and then see if we can bring back Evolution as a viable scientific hypothesis.

 

Medical advnces have nothing to do with Evolution Theory. They come from the biological sciences. Biological sciences do not come from Evolution Theory. Biology studies the details and facts of Life. Biology studies DNA - something which would have been discovered with or without Darwin, and something that can be studied no matter what religion the scientist adheres to. Come on now, wouldn't you laugh at me if I said that a biological scientist who dioscovered Vaccine X - and a scientist who went to church every Sunday - was a scientist who, through God, discovered the vaccine? Did God help him discover the vaccine? No of course not. The scientist used the truths of biological science to make the vaccine. Whether that scientist believes the myth that chimp and man share a common ancestor has nothing to do with it. These repeated attempts to legitimize the Evolution religion by pretending it is responsible for biology is ludicrous. Issac Newton was a Christian. Theology was not responsible for the Law of Gravity. Christian scientists use science to do their work, not God. Biologists use biology to do their science not Evolution myth.

An engineer building a Boeing 747 can build a plane even if he believes that Elvis is still alive and selling hamburgers in Boise Idaho. His Elvis myth doesn't impact on his work. A biologist can still do gene study even if he believes that certain gene was descended from a mythical Flying Spaghetti Monster from 3 billion years ago, or if it was poofed into life by god, or poofed into life by Elvis. The work of real science will carry on no matter what religion you adhere to. That goes for Evolution too. No vaccine was ever discovered by initially positing mythical common ancestors.

 

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

More evidence of the religious stature of Evolution: Biology makes no sense without Evolution, just as, for some, the Universe makes no sense without God. Good grief.

If you really truly have a distate for religion, look at this quote again, and then look at Evolution again.

I'm not a Creationist trying to bring God back. I am a rationalist inquiring as to how a rational person today can possibly believe that Evolution Theory has met the minimal standards of proper Scientific Inquiry. Evolution Theory really is "just a theory", nothing more. A theory waiting for evidence to arrive.

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

Evolution Theory is a theory. It has no scientific literature. Biology is the science. All scienctific literature rests with biology. Evolution Theory only has evograms and cartoons and assertions claiming to be facts.

 

 

A scientific theory is a collection of mutually supporting scientific hypotheses across multiple disciplines. Biology (bio, archeo and micro), geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology - ET ticks all these boxes. 

You clearly think abiogenesis is simpler than genetic speciation and happened for all species one at a time? All 9 million Eukaryote species were subject to abiogenesis and then appeared more or less fully formed?

 

Well.. the god hypothesis ticks all the boxes too. I am more interested as to whether a theory ticks the EVIDENCE box. I question whether some overstate the ticks though. Fossils do exist, for example. But fossils do not support the speciation hypothesis. Fossils are not archeology that 'tick' that box. Speciation - not adaptation - but speciation that has species developing into entirely different species is as yet unsupported by evidence. It is not evidenced, it appears thoroughly untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable. So where does science go from here for such a hypothesis?

 

Strictly, I suppose, I contend that individual species-based abiogenesis is not so much simpler as that it is a hypothesis that stays to the facts we have and more importantly does not violate Occam's Razor - we don't introduce things for which there is no evidence. That, to me, is a violation of Science - a poisoning of the well. Just as an atheist can say, "well I can't state that god does NOT exist, I can only say there is no evidence and I don't believe therefore that such a being does exist." Unless you know for sure, you can't deny for sure. So it is with (punctuated?) abiogenesis: if you don't know for sure such a  mechanism cannot be, then you can't assert for sure that is is impossible to be. If/when science solves abiogenesis, then we can see if the theory stands or falls.

 

Again what of the Cambrian mass of activity? Is this a point where DNA and abiogenesis found an environment that was incredibly friendly for the creation of certain life-forms? Where abiogenesis is simply constantly "pushing out" life in all eons, but those other mutations are near-instantly dying because of climate and such, but when the Cambrian environment occurred, then a wealth of mutations just "made it through" and took hold? Maybe what we see as punctuated equilibrium points are epochs in Time where abiogenesis breaks through and create a set of phyla for that environment at that particular Time. These species develop, grow and adapt as they migrate, but they do not speciate. Maybe they do, but the evidence should come first before we simply say that they do. Most species will go extinct as climate changes too much, but some species, as we know, will carry on through from epoch to epoch: they have been fortunate to be able to adapt beyond what others could tolerate. This is an Evolution Theory that can be called scientific. It stays close to the facts we know.

It sounds silly only because the abiogenesis point is so close to us in Time in this articulation. It sounds silly to believe that a life-form goes "poof" into existence but that only just highlights the fact that we are all ignorant of where life come from. All theories posit a "poof". Standard Evolution Theory only sounds more reasonable only because its big "poof" moment is placed so far back in Time we hardly need refer to it, or even think about. Bring that poof moment closer to us in Time and we - hypocritically - get subjected to ridicule for introducing "poof". Until abiogenesis is solved any theory, including Evolution, will have to have one or more "poof" moments.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'd accept

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

I'm not a Creationist trying to bring God back. I am a rationalist inquiring as to how a rational person today can possibly believe that Evolution Theory has met the minimal standards of proper Scientific Inquiry. Evolution Theory really is "just a theory", nothing more. A theory waiting for evidence to arrive.

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

 

you were a skeptic, Sockra but in your insistence that the modifiable hypothesis of ET with all the supporting data it contains (data you curiously and arbitrarily agree is at least partly true), is nothing more than mythological religion, you betray yourself as something more - I'm just not sure what that something is. I can understand why people get frustrated with your position - it is inconsistent. If you are to insist on absolute empirical proof for evolution then you must extend this insistence to everything - including god. 

And the whole 'poof' thing. What we label life is actually the combination of emergent properties of complex chemical systems. It is made of familiar molecules, molecule sets and enzymes. There's no question these things are complex, nor is there any doubt that experiments like Miller-Urey are not the perfect piece of empiricism but they prove in part that life was not formed by magic and that supernatural theories of 'spontaneous combustion' do not apply. At some point, in some conditions, these chemical systems began to replicate, arguably as the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide. They continue to replicate now, all around you. 

If you could show me any experiment or offer any hard data that supports a supernatural ignition of life I'd be keen to hear it. That doesn't just mean appealing to complexity - 'I don't understand, we'll never understand, so here's my opinion', either. Nor is just relentlessly asserting that religion and science are the same thing because they are demonstrably not the same thing. One is a process of testing that never claims to be absolutely certain and is always open to the incorporation of new data, the other is a group of contrived historical myths that attempt to explain aspects of life and consciousness without recourse to rigorous observation. 

For example, Sockra, let's you and I go down to Malabar and test the temperature required to boil fresh water at sea level. I'll bring a gas bottle, burner, tripod, beaker, notebook, pen and cooking thermometer and you bring a prayer rug. Guess which of us will wind up with the answer mostly likely to be true... 

It's also worth bearing in mind that you were once a single cell - just one single cell - and from that cell your entire body grew and is now sustained by ordinary everyday things like vegemite, weetbix and dark chocolate tim tams. There is no magic food in the human diet - just run of the mill combinations of carbohydrates, proteins and essential minerals, drawn from the Earth's crust by plants in whose leaves reside chloroplasts, plastids whose separate genetic code shows they are almost all derived from a single endosymbiotic event a couple of billion years ago. Plants are powered by single celled algae and these algae power the colony of 100 billion Eukaryote cells that make up your body, almost all of which cheerfully go about their business of existing, oblivious to the dubious epistemology of Sockra. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

Evolution Theory is a theory. It has no scientific literature. Biology is the science. All scienctific literature rests with biology. Evolution Theory only has evograms and cartoons and assertions claiming to be facts.

 

 

A scientific theory is a collection of mutually supporting scientific hypotheses across multiple disciplines. Biology (bio, archeo and micro), geology, physics, chemistry, cosmology - ET ticks all these boxes. 

You clearly think abiogenesis is simpler than genetic speciation and happened for all species one at a time? All 9 million Eukaryote species were subject to abiogenesis and then appeared more or less fully formed?

 

Well.. the god hypothesis ticks all the boxes too. I am more interested as to whether a theory ticks the EVIDENCE box. I question whether some overstate the ticks though. Fossils do exist, for example. But fossils do not support the speciation hypothesis. Fossils are not archeology that 'tick' that box. Speciation - not adaptation - but speciation that has species developing into entirely different species is as yet unsupported by evidence. It is not evidenced, it appears thoroughly untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable. So where does science go from here for such a hypothesis?

 

 

The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

 

The search for genes that drive speciation is a difficult one. No more than a handful of these have been found. Now, the first of these genes in mammals has been found. It is a very important step.

There are several ways to define species, but the most accepted definition would be that a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263378

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Please read this Sockra

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

Evolution Theory really is "just a theory", nothing more. A theory waiting for evidence to arrive.

The Emperor has no clothes.

 

A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.

 

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

 

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

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Here's your damn Science, monkey boy

Sockra Tease wrote:

 Now.... have a look at Evolution: these common ancestors, for which there is no scientific evidence, are asserted to exist - they simply MUST exist or the Theory falls down. We can't have the Theory fall down so these ancestors simply MUST exist, therefore they DO exist. There you go! Neat and tidy. A scientific proof that Evolution Theory is right and solid. Again, why do these common ancestors, without evidence, get a free pass from being subjected to the plain rules and tests of science? The "experts", when really put up against the wall on this point finally concede, "well we are very sure that one day the evidence will arise." Well... can't a Christian argue that even though scientific evidence for God doesn't exist, one day, we shall find out and there will be evidence? Why are Evolutionists allowed to put the evidence-discovery into the future, and thereby klet the hypothesis stand, and yet others are not?

And this is what you want to call Science now?

 

 

 

 

These are the non-existent fossil antecedents of humanity - there are more than 20 species.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

You need to do some reading. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
These assertions suggest you


Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{1} ET certainly qualifies as a cultural system. Millions have been indoctrinated into it.

{2} Given the astonishing lack of scientific backup, it qualifies as a belief system.

 

 

are the victim of an extreme cognitive bias. Just saying you support scientific thought and method does not mean you support science. You are a person who ignores science and focuses on the gaps.

You are the lord of fallacious appeals to incredulity based on a lack of comprehension.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
And this post suggests you

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

 

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: The

Atheistextremist wrote:
The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

 

The search for genes that drive speciation is a difficult one. No more than a handful of these have been found. Now, the first of these genes in mammals has been found. It is a very important step.

There are several ways to define species, but the most accepted definition would be that a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263378 

Are you really serious about this? A species that adapts with procreative difficulty (infertility) is proof of speciation, just because a Czech scientist - wanting to be famous, or looking for funding - claims he has discovered proof of speciation. This is just like a ring species.  When you come across evidence where one species adapts into a different species, let me know. until then let us just assert it MUST be so, therefore it is so. This is no different to a ring species: it begins as ring species, ends as ring species and no new genetic information is created. And "poof" , speciation is proven...?

Amazing.

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll.  

 

If you want to get rude, fine. Let me remind you, I asked you before and you evaded the question. I left you off easy by courtesy, now I will be ardent:

I asked you for proof of this antecedent species to chimp and man. Now I insist. You avoided answering. Why is that?

I'll insist now. Put up or shut up and let us all see how your pretense at rationality is a sham. Where is this evidence that you say exists?

Stop the evasions by asking ME for evidence of God. I am not positing god. I admit there is no scientific evidence for god. Stop the evasions. Now it is your turn on the seat. Where is your evidence for this antecedent ancestor to chimp and man. I want to see it in your next post please.

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

 Now.... have a look at Evolution: these common ancestors, for which there is no scientific evidence, are asserted to exist - they simply MUST exist or the Theory falls down. We can't have the Theory fall down so these ancestors simply MUST exist, therefore they DO exist. There you go! Neat and tidy. A scientific proof that Evolution Theory is right and solid. Again, why do these common ancestors, without evidence, get a free pass from being subjected to the plain rules and tests of science? The "experts", when really put up against the wall on this point finally concede, "well we are very sure that one day the evidence will arise." Well... can't a Christian argue that even though scientific evidence for God doesn't exist, one day, we shall find out and there will be evidence? Why are Evolutionists allowed to put the evidence-discovery into the future, and thereby klet the hypothesis stand, and yet others are not?

And this is what you want to call Science now?

 

 

 

 

These are the non-existent fossil antecedents of humanity - there are more than 20 species.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

You need to do some reading. 

Great. Now what tests have been done to these specimens to distinguish them from early stage of homo sapien, or homo .... whatever we choose to call it, and a separate species that equates with chimp?

What are the tests done to prove speciation? Where is the science to show that these are not early homo sapiens adapting to environment? What  tests are done to show which stages had consciousness and which stages were "pre-human" without consciousness? These are the fossils. Thank you. Now where is the actual science that proves speciation?

You can't just show me a lineup of skulls and pretend they prove speciation. Where are the tests that prove the hypothesis?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll.  

 

If you want to get rude, fine. Let me remind you, I asked you before and you evaded the question. I left you off easy by courtesy, now I will be ardent:

I asked you for proof of this antecedent species to chimp and man. Now I insist. You avoided answering. Why is that?

I'll insist now. Put up or shut up and let us all see how your pretense at rationality is a sham. Where is this evidence that you say exists?

Stop the evasions by asking ME for evidence of God. I am not positing god. I admit there is no scientific evidence for god. Stop the evasions. Now it is your turn on the seat. Where is your evidence for this antecedent ancestor to chimp and man. I want to see it in your next post please.

 

 

If you suggest atheists are not moral against the evidence you will get short shrift on this site - don't insult us and play the victim.  

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:


Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{1} ET certainly qualifies as a cultural system. Millions have been indoctrinated into it.

{2} Given the astonishing lack of scientific backup, it qualifies as a belief system.

 

 

are the victim of an extreme cognitive bias. Just saying you support scientific thought and method does not mean you support science. You are a person who ignores science and focuses on the gaps.

You are the lord of fallacious appeals to incredulity based on a lack of comprehension.  

 

The gaps are counter-evidence to The Theory. I can see why you wish to ignore them.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sockra Tease

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

 Now.... have a look at Evolution: these common ancestors, for which there is no scientific evidence, are asserted to exist - they simply MUST exist or the Theory falls down. We can't have the Theory fall down so these ancestors simply MUST exist, therefore they DO exist. There you go! Neat and tidy. A scientific proof that Evolution Theory is right and solid. Again, why do these common ancestors, without evidence, get a free pass from being subjected to the plain rules and tests of science? The "experts", when really put up against the wall on this point finally concede, "well we are very sure that one day the evidence will arise." Well... can't a Christian argue that even though scientific evidence for God doesn't exist, one day, we shall find out and there will be evidence? Why are Evolutionists allowed to put the evidence-discovery into the future, and thereby klet the hypothesis stand, and yet others are not?

And this is what you want to call Science now?

 

 

 

 

These are the non-existent fossil antecedents of humanity - there are more than 20 species.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

 

You need to do some reading. 

Great. Now what tests have been done to these specimens to distinguish them from early stage of homo sapien, or homo .... whatever we choose to call it, and a separate species that equates with chimp?

What are the tests done to prove speciation? Where is the science to show that these are not early homo sapiens adapting to environment? What  tests are done to show which stages had consciousness and which stages were "pre-human" without consciousness? These are the fossils. Thank you. Now where is the actual science that proves speciation?

You can't just show me a lineup of skulls and pretend they prove speciation. Where are the tests that prove the hypothesis?

 

These are species of hominid that lie between humans and chimps. Their morphology has been studied to exhaustion. Please give us your version of the word 'science'.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

 

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll. 

Thanks for the really rational dismissal. I am sure others on this Forum have already dismissed me as a troll: that way they don't have to deal with rational argument. My arguments are fully rational; if you want to run away from them, feel free. I know how people get upset when their faiths are challenged.

Atheism has no moral code because it simply posits "a - theism". I am not saying atheists are evil, immoral bastards. I am saying if an atheist has a moral code it does not come FROM atheism, because atheism is not a system of morality. It is morally "negative" because it has null moral content. How could it? Atheism is simple "no god-ism". Where does the morality come from, from that one statement?

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There will

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:


Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{1} ET certainly qualifies as a cultural system. Millions have been indoctrinated into it.

{2} Given the astonishing lack of scientific backup, it qualifies as a belief system.

 

 

are the victim of an extreme cognitive bias. Just saying you support scientific thought and method does not mean you support science. You are a person who ignores science and focuses on the gaps.

You are the lord of fallacious appeals to incredulity based on a lack of comprehension.  

 

The gaps are counter-evidence to The Theory. I can see why you wish to ignore them.

 

never be a complete set of fossils. There is no CHLCA fossil. Please give me Sockra's grand theory that explains what the lineage of all these fossils is - why they graduate in time from more ape-like to more human. Explain the combined skeletal charateristics of ape and more modern human in the middle of the record and the loss of ape characteristics towards the end. What is your theory. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Apologies

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

 

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll. 

Thanks for the really rational dismissal. I am sure others on this Forum have already dismissed me as a troll: that way they don't have to deal with rational argument. My arguments are fully rational; if you want to run away from them, feel free. I know how people get upset when their faiths are challenged.

Atheism has no moral code because it simply posits "a - theism". I am not saying atheists are evil, immoral bastards. I am saying if an atheist has a moral code it does not come FROM atheism, because atheism is not a system of morality. It is morally "negative" because it has null moral content. How could it? Atheism is simple "no god-ism". Where does the morality come from, from that one statement?

 

 

 

I am over sensitive on this one. Let's get over this and move on. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jesus wept

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

 

The search for genes that drive speciation is a difficult one. No more than a handful of these have been found. Now, the first of these genes in mammals has been found. It is a very important step.

There are several ways to define species, but the most accepted definition would be that a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263378 

Are you really serious about this? A species that adapts with procreative difficulty (infertility) is proof of speciation, just because a Czech scientist - wanting to be famous, or looking for funding - claims he has discovered proof of speciation. This is just like a ring species.  When you come across evidence where one species adapts into a different species, let me know. until then let us just assert it MUST be so, therefore it is so. This is no different to a ring species: it begins as ring species, ends as ring species and no new genetic information is created. And "poof" , speciation is proven...?

Amazing.

 

 

The man poses a modifiable hypothesis - no one is worshipping it or killing their neighbours over it. If you want to prove it is wrong then spend 30 years of your life unstitching his dedicated research and come up with an hypothesis of your own. Until you do, his points are arguably true. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

 

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll. 

Thanks for the really rational dismissal. I am sure others on this Forum have already dismissed me as a troll: that way they don't have to deal with rational argument. My arguments are fully rational; if you want to run away from them, feel free. I know how people get upset when their faiths are challenged.

Atheism has no moral code because it simply posits "a - theism". I am not saying atheists are evil, immoral bastards. I am saying if an atheist has a moral code it does not come FROM atheism, because atheism is not a system of morality. It is morally "negative" because it has null moral content. How could it? Atheism is simple "no god-ism". Where does the morality come from, from that one statement?

 

I am over sensitive on this one. Let's get over this and move on. 

 

No worries. I really did mean to say that atheism is amoral, not immoral, and only that atheism in and of itself presents no morality. An atheist has to get morality from some moral system somewhere.


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

 

The search for genes that drive speciation is a difficult one. No more than a handful of these have been found. Now, the first of these genes in mammals has been found. It is a very important step.

There are several ways to define species, but the most accepted definition would be that a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263378 

Are you really serious about this? A species that adapts with procreative difficulty (infertility) is proof of speciation, just because a Czech scientist - wanting to be famous, or looking for funding - claims he has discovered proof of speciation. This is just like a ring species.  When you come across evidence where one species adapts into a different species, let me know. until then let us just assert it MUST be so, therefore it is so. This is no different to a ring species: it begins as ring species, ends as ring species and no new genetic information is created. And "poof" , speciation is proven...?

Amazing.

 

 

The man poses a modifiable hypothesis - no one is worshipping it or killing their neighbours over it. If you want to prove it is wrong then spend 30 years of your life unstitching his dedicated research and come up with an hypothesis of your own. Until you do, his points are arguably true. 

 

 

The facts of his proposal are true. His inference that this evidences speciation is unsupportable. The problem is that people who believe in Evolution will let him off the hook for that inference being declared fact.

If I presented a potato that had a shape that appeared to look like an image of Jesus, surely you wouldn't let me get away with saying this was a theological proof of something? Yes, it is a potato. Yes, it has a shape that resembles other images. But that is the end of the story. No theology allowed in here please. Christian supporters would let it in though; it jibes with their narrative.

All I say is, it is the same with this alleged evidence. The facts are so. That is the biology. That is the science. But that is the end of the story. The speciation-proof inference is just not supported by what is actually shown and seen. No new genetic information has been created. This is an adaptation process in evidence, not speciation.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I see

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

{3} ET is used to relate Mankind to "negative" spirituality and morality; ET is used as a basis for an atheistic and amoral universe.

 

 

might also be a complete arsehole. If you make another post like this - suggesting atheism is amoral and morally negative - an assertion that flies in the face of the scientific evidence 

http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime

it will be my great pleasure to stoop to some serious ad hominem. In any case with this fallacious appeal to consequences you just gave yourself away.

You are a quasi-christian troll. 

Thanks for the really rational dismissal. I am sure others on this Forum have already dismissed me as a troll: that way they don't have to deal with rational argument. My arguments are fully rational; if you want to run away from them, feel free. I know how people get upset when their faiths are challenged.

Atheism has no moral code because it simply posits "a - theism". I am not saying atheists are evil, immoral bastards. I am saying if an atheist has a moral code it does not come FROM atheism, because atheism is not a system of morality. It is morally "negative" because it has null moral content. How could it? Atheism is simple "no god-ism". Where does the morality come from, from that one statement?

 

I am over sensitive on this one. Let's get over this and move on. 

 

No worries. I really did mean to say that atheism is amoral, not immoral, and only that atheism in and of itself presents no morality. An atheist has to get morality from some moral system somewhere.

 

as the child of a preacher and a missionary whose fundamentalist family insists he will burn alive eternally I suffer from emotive reactions to faint suggestions atheists are morally different from god people. I lose my sense of context and get emotional. Eternal torment will do that to a person. Anyway - what do you think about the discovery linked...it's not a solution in a box by any means but it's another piece in the puzzle. 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But if species are divided by

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
The first speciation gene in mammals has just been discovered

 

The search for genes that drive speciation is a difficult one. No more than a handful of these have been found. Now, the first of these genes in mammals has been found. It is a very important step.

There are several ways to define species, but the most accepted definition would be that a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

http://digitaljournal.com/article/263378 

Are you really serious about this? A species that adapts with procreative difficulty (infertility) is proof of speciation, just because a Czech scientist - wanting to be famous, or looking for funding - claims he has discovered proof of speciation. This is just like a ring species.  When you come across evidence where one species adapts into a different species, let me know. until then let us just assert it MUST be so, therefore it is so. This is no different to a ring species: it begins as ring species, ends as ring species and no new genetic information is created. And "poof" , speciation is proven...?

Amazing.

 

 

The man poses a modifiable hypothesis - no one is worshipping it or killing their neighbours over it. If you want to prove it is wrong then spend 30 years of your life unstitching his dedicated research and come up with an hypothesis of your own. Until you do, his points are arguably true. 

 

 

The facts of his proposal are true. His inference that this evidences speciation is unsupportable. The problem is that people who believe in Evolution will let him off the hook for that inference being declared fact.

If I presented a potato that had a shape that appeared to look like an image of Jesus, surely you wouldn't let me get away with saying this was a theological proof of something? Yes, it is a potato. Yes, it has a shape that resembles other images. But that is the end of the story. No theology allowed in here please. Christian supporters would let it in though; it jibes with their narrative.

All I say is, it is the same with this alleged evidence. The facts are so. That is the biology. That is the science. But that is the end of the story. The speciation-proof inference is just not supported by what is actually shown and seen. No new genetic information has been created. This is an adaptation process in evidence, not speciation.

 

procreation and then evolve separately from the point of 'adaptation beyond procreation' then surely he has discovered a point of divergence?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

never be a complete set of fossils. There is no CHLCA fossil. Please give me Sockra's grand theory that explains what the lineage of all these fossils is - why they graduate in time from more ape-like to more human. Explain the combined skeletal charateristics of ape and more modern human in the middle of the record and the loss of ape characteristics towards the end. What is your theory. 

Thanks for your honesty here. That is an answer with integrity.

Two points:

1) does my lack of an alternative theory offer any proof that Evolution is correct, or does it merely suggest that we are dealing with a mystery here such that fossil evidence is evidence incredibly lesser than having live specimens to work with.

2) Given the great lack of evidence, does it behoove Evolution to examine closely what it considers to be non-human fossils (ape or mythical antecedent) and what are early human fossils? Is the first immediate inference to jump to, the one that violates Occam's Razor?

3) Similar abiogenesis timing explains similar DNA homology. Two species of fish may look similar too, but DNA homology does not prove descent. Descent requires its own evidence.. that is, if we want to retain the integrity of Science and return to the days when we don't posit something UNLESS there is evidence to support it.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Sure Occy's razor

Sockra Tease wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

never be a complete set of fossils. There is no CHLCA fossil. Please give me Sockra's grand theory that explains what the lineage of all these fossils is - why they graduate in time from more ape-like to more human. Explain the combined skeletal charateristics of ape and more modern human in the middle of the record and the loss of ape characteristics towards the end. What is your theory. 

Thanks for your honesty here. That is an answer with integrity.

Two points:

1) does my lack of an alternative theory offer any proof that Evolution is correct, or does it merely suggest that we are dealing with a mystery here such that fossil evidence is evidence incredibly lesser than having live specimens to work with.

2) Given the great lack of evidence, does it behoove Evolution to examine closely what it considers to be non-human fossils (ape or mythical antecedent) and what are early human fossils? Is the first immediate inference to jump to, the one that violates Occam's Razor?

3) Similar abiogenesis timing explains similar DNA homology. Two species of fish may look similar too, but DNA homology does not prove descent. Descent requires its own evidence.. that is, if we want to retain the integrity of Science and return to the days when we don't posit something UNLESS there is evidence to support it.

 

 

would not advocate an entirely fresh abiogenesis event for every species - millions of abiogenesis events over billions of years. The fact all multicellular creatures are Eukaryotes - their cells virtually identical in all workings - suggests all creatures are descended from these same Eukaryotes. Surely you can't argue life began again with protists, the Eukaryotes that derive their organelles from Prokaryote symbiosis and then multicellularity, all over again and again and again. Abiogenesis seems to have happened just the once, if the genetic bottlenecks can be believed. All our cells, in all organisms are fundamentally identical. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

procreation and then evolve separately from the point of 'adaptation beyond procreation' then surely he has discovered a point of divergence?

 

If we apply a procreation/species definition, then this is significant - as are the ring species. For me (not just me natch) the key breakthrough would be genetic information "creation". Evolution and natural selection cannot explain the mechanism for creating new genetic information where prior there was none. Evidence of this is crucial for the speciation hypothesis to fly. I am stunned that speciation is allowed to be considered "scientific fact" without clear and obvious evidence of genetic information creation while speciating. To my ears it is like positing something that naturally travels in time, and when someone asks, well wait a minute... where in nature do we see an example of something that can time travel?... and the answer comes back, well, we don't yet, but we're looking! Sorry, but for me that means the hypothesis goes back to "just a theory" status, not actual scientific theory.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

as the child of a preacher and a missionary whose fundamentalist family insists he will burn alive eternally I suffer from emotive reactions to faint suggestions atheists are morally different from god people. I lose my sense of context and get emotional. Eternal torment will do that to a person. Anyway - what do you think about the discovery linked...it's not a solution in a box by any means but it's another piece in the puzzle. 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

Understood. I have been getting quite some ad hominem dumped on me these last years for daring to question Evolution theory, so I suppose I get weary at the anger, or just what I sense to be anger. That's what I like about the folks here - disgree all we want, but we examine the arguments nonetheless.

An intersting article and an interesting find of course. The first result is the moving of he hominid class back to 4.4 million years. The next step is to inquire whether we are dealing with a true antecedent species or have uncovered yet another hominid. Again, I feel it is a leap, and a wild one, to infer descent from this newbie just straight off the bat with such little evidence. It reads as guesswork to me on very little basis and when we see further down the article where inferences are made about sexual loyalty.... oh brother! ... making guesses about sexual loyalty already for an instance of a "new species" that is 4.4 million years old!?!?!

You see what I mean about ET poisoning the well? Would scientists in the good old days of Einstein dared to have made such 'speculations-as-fact' on so little?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It is fair to call

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

An intersting article and an interesting find of course. The first result is the moving of he hominid class back to 4.4 million years. The next step is to inquire whether we are dealing with a true antecedent species or have uncovered yet another hominid. Again, I feel it is a leap, and a wild one, to infer descent from this newbie just straight off the bat with such little evidence. It reads as guesswork to me on very little basis and when we see further down the article where inferences are made about sexual loyalty.... oh brother! ... making guesses about sexual loyalty already for an instance of a "new species" that is 4.4 million years old!?!?!

You see what I mean about ET poisoning the well? Would scientists in the good old days of Einstein dared to have made such 'speculations-as-fact' on so little?

 

 

many points relating to the evolution of modern creatures with relatively few intermediates speculations. Personally, I think the genus homo is surprising rich in fossils. They are nevertheless informed to some extent. No fossil has ever been found that directly contradicts the general theory - earlier life being simpler and having less diversity. There's also the issue with the similarity of the highly distinctive primary building blocks.

What do you think about the bacterial DNA inside the mitochondria of many Eukaryote cells? It is distinct from the DNA of the nucleous and virtually identical to existing parasitic bacteria. Curiously, it appears the mitochondria which powers the cell used to be a free form aquatic beast that somehow, took up residence as part of the development of complex cells. The likelihood the very same bacteria would colonise prokaryote cells as part of the development of complex cells and do so millions of times would made Occam quail...

Endosymbiosis is an empirically untestable hypothesis but it does rest on the key fact that all Eukaryote cells contain bacterial remnants and symbiosis appears the only explanation for this.

  

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitorigin.html 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:would

Atheistextremist wrote:

would not advocate an entirely fresh abiogenesis event for every species - millions of abiogenesis events over billions of years. The fact all multicellular creatures are Eukaryotes - their cells virtually identical in all workings - suggests all creatures are descended from these same Eukaryotes. Surely you can't argue life began again with protists, the Eukaryotes that derive their organelles from Prokaryote symbiosis and then multicellularity, all over again and again and again. Abiogenesis seems to have happened just the once, if the genetic bottlenecks can be believed. All our cells, in all organisms are fundamentally identical.  

I can only posit the possibility of multiple abiogenesis events. Whether at species, genus or family level and to what degree is unknown. The presence of Eukaryotes is firm science. Their lineage is evidenced. The speciation hypothesis that they changed into another species or family or what, is an inference that requires evidence to be Science. We are going pretty far back in time to be making such speculations, I suggest.

I don't deny the "common heritage" of DNA. Some folks argue that I deny commonality and therefore deny all life is DNA based. The "common" I accept - biology evidences that. The descent part is the speculation. Yes it could be so, but my argument is that we don't posit it as scientific fact unless we have evidence to support it. That is the very reason god was ousted from Science: there was/is no evidence. We simply have to be consistent. If not for any other reason than to keep science-theorists honest and not degenerate into History Channel speculators (who suggest that the presence of a piece of Oriental pottery in Italy PROVES an ancient oriental civilization lived in Italy!) If we are going to separate science from religion, let's get rid of all religions.

 


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:many

Atheistextremist wrote:


many points relating to the evolution of modern creatures with relatively few intermediates speculations. Personally, I think the genus homo is surprising rich in fossils. They are nevertheless informed to some extent. No fossil has ever been found that directly contradicts the general theory - earlier life being simpler and having less diversity. There's also the issue with the similarity of the highly distinctive primary building blocks.

What do you think about the bacterial DNA inside the mitochondria of many Eukaryote cells? It is distinct from the DNA of the nucleous and virtually identical to existing parasitic bacteria. Curiously, it appears the mitochondria which powers the cell used to be a free form aquatic beast that somehow, took up residence as part of the development of complex cells. The likelihood the very same bacteria would colonise prokaryote cells as part of the development of complex cells and do so millions of times would made Occam quail...

 

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/mitochondria/mitorigin.html 

 

It is a good example, again, of argument by assertion. Several times it is simply, cavalierly, inserted that this mechanism happens by 'descent'. Evolution by descent is posited as a possible explanation and then slowly through the piece it silently slips into the only explanation. I will say again, logic and Evolution tells us that there is another possible answer: natural selection chooses different mutations of such cells with different properties. Natural selection of several variations instead of linear descent.

Two possible explanations. Neither can be proved right; neither proved wrong.

The thing is... a citation like this spreads across the internet and is read, passed on, adapted, passed on and so forth and how many people use it as alleged "evidence" for speciation, and yet it really isn't evidence at all? It is just asserted that descent explains the mechanism. But there is no proof here. Just assertion. Mulitply this by thousands of thousands of times, add in the multiplier effect, and we see how people can say that there is just SO MUCH evidence, the internet is clogged with it and just everyone agrees with this solid evidence, that it just must be so. That is the danger of "proof" by assertion allowed to go viral. The vast amount of it is taken as an argument to authority, and people can believe in ET now because so many others believe. That will do as proof for many folks.

 

(I wonder how many people still believe President Obama is a Muslim?)

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I think all

 

Sockra Tease wrote:

 

My argument is that we don't posit it as scientific fact unless we have evidence to support it. That is the very reason god was ousted from Science: there was/is no evidence. We simply have to be consistent. 

 

 

scientists would agree that it's possible for there to come to be a dogmatic belief in the accepted theories of the day. I think you could argue there is no such thing as a concrete scientific fact - complete in its entirety comprising all knowledge there was to be had about a thing's characteristics. The great thing about the modifiable hypothesis is that it remains fluid and can be remade to suit new evidence that overturns all previous discovery. 

Should we find complex life in unbroken sediments containing Edicara fossils at Wilpena Pound, for instance, that would constitute such an overturn. No such evidence has ever been found - ever. This suggests to me support for ET. I could not argue the thing was beyond question. But every new fossil simply provides more support for the theory - as much support as a fossil can provide, of course. 

Describing science as a mythical religion is wrong-minded in my opinion but I agree it is possible for lay people to talk about things as being true that are in fact speculations laced between facts. Personally, I believe ET is adequately proven and can be considered, of all the possibilities, the most coherent and best supported of all theories of abiogenesis and speciation. Hopefully, in our time, there will be sufficient comprehension of the nature and meaning of DNA to give us a more complete understanding of how things came to be. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Sockra Tease
Posts: 90
Joined: 2012-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Sockra Tease wrote:

My argument is that we don't posit it as scientific fact unless we have evidence to support it. That is the very reason god was ousted from Science: there was/is no evidence. We simply have to be consistent. 

 

scientists would agree that it's possible for there to come to be a dogmatic belief in the accepted theories of the day. I think you could argue there is no such thing as a concrete scientific fact - complete in its entirety comprising all knowledge there was to be had about a thing's characteristics. The great thing about the modifiable hypothesis is that it remains fluid and can be remade to suit new evidence that overturns all previous discovery.

Yes I agree. I would add that if one looks at Evolution Theory with a rational mind, objectively, not as someone who in advance of the inquiry believes Evolution to be true, there are some serious problems with what is being relayed. Are things being called concrete fact which are not really concrete scientific fact? Is the problem with Evolution simply that the record of evidence is "incomplete" or is the problem - especially with the fundamental premises alone - that the evidence is simply not there at all yet?

Modifiable hypotheses are great indeed. I suppose for the atheist that is a problem though, as the 'god hypothesis' is modifiable too. Various religions have modified it, and I too have modified it to a deistic hypothesis - one that stands at the core of Humanism and possibly abiogenesis which are simply two manifestations of "love", and the desitic "God is Love" formulation seems to work for me. Science is seeing the limits to what it can study: love, beauty, 'selection', 'design', and so far, abiogenesis, are beyond the reach of material analysis.

Another potential problem with the modifiable Evolution hypothesis is that it is VERY modifiable. In some folks I engage with in conversation it slowly becomes obvious that Evolution has been modified into simply another Creation narrative. Alot of Evolutionists are back-door Creationists. they have abandoned the Bible narrative of how we are placed in History, and have just moved over to Evolution as an explanation of how we are placed in History. It seems for some too existentially frightening to be alone in the desert as homo sapien, unconnected, and without purpose or direction. But Evolution provides PURPOSE and DIRECTION. The very things lost when theism and religion were left behind.

Evolution places railway tracks on the sand in the desert and says the tracks go way way way back somewhere, and go forward somewhere. Where?, well in either direction we don't really know the ultimate 'where'. But you are no longer alone now; you are on a train with all DNA life and you really did come from somewhere, and you are going on a magical mystery tour into the future. In a non-theistic, nature-as-chance sort of way that is enough for 'purpse' and it certainly provides direction. There is definitely a psychological/religious comfort from Evolution as Creation (direction) myth. Abiogenesis created the SCA, and we all descended - along the railway track - from this SCA, and here we stand now as descendents in one big happy family of Life.

True atheism would abandon the mythical railway tracks - unless we actually do find them in the desert of course - and allow that for now we really are standing alone in the desert, homo sapien, alone unconnected to any mythical common ancestor that takes us back in an alleged chain of descendency back to a mythical SCA. The Evolution creation myth only "explains" the facts as well as theistic creationin myth does, which is really not very well after all.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Should we find complex life in unbroken sediments containing Edicara fossils at Wilpena Pound, for instance, that would constitute such an overturn. No such evidence has ever been found - ever. This suggests to me support for ET. I could not argue the thing was beyond question. But every new fossil simply provides more support for the theory - as much support as a fossil can provide, of course.

What you say is so and is true. I personally don't put too much weight on the "contrary evidence has not been found, therefore the theory is true" argument as it is an argument everyone can use for all mythologies. There has never been found any evidence that contradicts the "Jesus was alive, crucified and rose from the dead" hypothesis. To a rational mind, this would have to suggest support for Christian theism. The only way a rational mind rejects this as support is to argue that:  lack of evidence to support the negative hypothesis is not evidence that supports the positive hypothesis.

Remember.. if we were to suddenly find a living dinosaur in the Brazilian jungles, that would not be evidence against ET. The Theory adherents would simply marvel that one specimen of a long ago thought-to-be-extinct species actually managed to survive to today.The dinosaur evogram will be modified. Evolution Theory is so modifiable, it cannot be falsified: evograms are just modified, new species are labelled, intermediary species are merely labelled, species called extinct are called non-extinct now. Nothing can falsify ET.

If we found complex life in a pond, as yet unexplored, and found Edicara fossils alongside it, we would amend our evograms to declare what forms of life existed at that point in Time in that area. That is all. If it is just one instance, again, archeology error or mendacity would be the first suspicions. If more similar evidence came to light then ET would be modified to declare a complex form of life was found back then, and evidently went extinct. The "complex life" evogram would be altered. A sub-theory of punctuated equilibrium for complex life would be adopted, and so on... there is really no way to falsify ET.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Describing science as a mythical religion is wrong-minded in my opinion but I agree it is possible for lay people to talk about things as being true that are in fact speculations laced between facts. Personally, I believe ET is adequately proven and can be considered, of all the possibilities, the most coherent and best supported of all theories of abiogenesis and speciation. Hopefully, in our time, there will be sufficient comprehension of the nature and meaning of DNA to give us a more complete understanding of how things came to be. 

I take your point and appreciate your rational integrity. I suppose my departure point for 'religion' is the introduction of things beyond what is evidenced in Nature. Personally, I feel Evolution does this. It is a workable theory nonetheless, but again personally, I feel the integrity of Science has to be debased in order to allow certain premises to be declared "proven scientific fact". And so, I believe Evolution has poisoned the well of True Science. I will admit, if a scientist, for example, ever subjects a tadpole to tests where in the normal state of affairs that tadpole would grow to frog, yet with controlled alterations to environmental conditions, that tadpole grew into a lizard, I would concede that speciation does indeed exist in Nature, and ET looks very very true. I would then see true scientific evidence that environment can alter genetic information to the point beyond mere adaptation but mutation to a distinct other species. I want to see the tests where genetic code altered to the point where speciation actually does occur. I want to see evidence of an instance of Microsoft Word program code alter by natural environmental conditions into an instance of Microsoft Excel program code... by natural selection, by 'chance'. It would have to be by blind chance of course, as we don't want to introduce a notion of 'purpose' (smells like 'design') to this process.