Questions to Evolutionists

[The Last Conformist]

I'd love to see an actual citation of this supposed occurence, because I can't find any reference to it.

Edward Drinker Cope, a famous palaeontologist and "fossil hunter" in the late 19th C as well as the type specimen for Homo sapiens, once mistakenly mounted a Elasmosaurus skull on the wrong end of the animal.

Now, Elasmosaurus of course isn't a dinosaur, but nonetheless I think we can assume this is what lies behind civ2's claim. He'd never struck me as the kind who wouldn't get taxonomy totally wrong.

 

[Boris Godunov]

Edward Drinker Cope, a famous palaeontologist and "fossil hunter" in the late 18th C as well as the type specimen for Homo sapiens, once mistakenly mounted a Elasmosaurus skull on the wrong end of the animal.

Now, Elasmosaurus of course isn't a dinosaur, but nonetheless I think we can assume this is what lies behind civ2's claim. He'd never struck me as the kind who wouldn't get taxonomy totally wrong.

Looks like he was 19th Century, not 18th. And a "Neo-Lamarckian," so not even a "Darwinist."

Regardless, that's hysterical that civ2 thinks a paleontologist making a mistake in 1869 somehow renders modern-day paleontology suspect in its methods. As I surmised, the person who pointed out his error was another paleontologist, Othniel Marsh. Not a creationist.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Looks like he was 19th Century, not 18th.

Yes, typo on my part.

And a "Neo-Lamarckian," so not even a "Darwinist."

I'm pretty sure neo-lamarkians are "darwinists" as civ2 would understand the term.

Regardless, that's hysterical that civ2 thinks a paleontologist making a mistake in 1869 somehow renders modern-day paleontology suspect in its methods.

Certainly.

As I surmised, the person who pointed out his error was another paleontologist, Othniel Marsh. Not a creationist.

And in a good show of what science isn't supposed to be about, Cope hated him forever for it.

Edit: I'm told by Dan Varner that Joseph Leidy actually was the one to identify the error, and that Marsh seized on it as a way to get at his rival.

 

[Steph]

Perhaps he thinks that instead of having lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, etc., Noah could have just had 2 "big cats."

Of course, this would require a subsequent rate of evolution of these animals to branch off into their respective species post-Ark that far exceeds what evolutionary science shows is feasible, or what is remotely realistic by genetics. Not to mention that this "model" completely fails to explain the diffusion of species around the globe post-Ark.

Next time I ask such a question to a creationist, could you please refrain from answering it on their behalf?

I would have loved to see Civ2 expain that without contradicting himself in the process.

 

[mdwh]

mdwh
1. MY "knowledge" (of any subject) is not the same as yours - therefore stop asking me to explain to you.
You have your own brain.
(This was a joke - better use reliable information.)

Okay, joking aside, I'm still curious what this knowledge of God is. I'm sure the rest of humanity would like to know - there might be a Nobel Prize in it.

2. That's exactly my point - you don't have ANY complete proof of ANY species.
You have only fragments (same concerning the majority of fossils) - how can you be sure you didn't make a mistake?

So you are saying you will only believe it if we dig up every single fossil in existence?

In that case, I wonder how you can believe in anything. How can you get far in life if you are unable to deduce things from evidence?

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you don't have the same requirement of proof for your belief in God.

And since you're not a scientist yourself (if YOU are then many others are not anyway) - how can you be sure that scientists made no mistakes?
It's definitely a matter of BELIEF - but this time the "priests" are called scientists.

Oh not this one again. Yes, I have to believe that there's not some global conspiracy where all the scientists are lying. But given what I have seen verified from scientists, it seems more likely that there isn't some global conspiracy where they all make up things and lie.

Either way, this is *not* the same as believing priests - my problem is not that I think there's a global conspiracy of priests. I'm sure they genuinely believe what they say. However, I consider the method of "I say it so it must be true" or "This book says this so it must be true" to be flawed. I consider the scientific method not to be flawed.

Do you believe in UFO?
Why many people do - though it's obvious that it's a total crap?
Because some "scientists" said so!

Er, since when did science prove the existance of UFOs? Last time I looked, most of the scientific community was quite sceptical about UFOs, ghosts, pixies and whatever else people believe in.

 

[mdwh]

Newton wrote some Laws of Motion. Einstein wrote a Special Theory of Relativity. These documents both seek to identify formulae that predict the motion of objects in the universe. The difference in terminology reflects a reduction in arrogance rather than a change in purpose.

The difference between laws and theories are that the former are simple observations or relationships, the latter are models describing a whole set of behaviour. Newton still had his theory of gravity. Later on, we had Gas Laws and Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[AlanH]

So you want me to reverse my use of the terms? I have no problem with that. The theoretical models are attempts to explain the patterns we see in the behaviour of the universe. Why would we bother trying to make the models if we weren't attempting to discover the true rules of the mechanisms that drive it?

And I still contend that you can't use "Why" as one of the questions that scientists are trying to answer. That's at the root of the issues between religion and science. Religion wants to know the purpose of the universe and doesn't care how it happened. Science wants to discover how it came to exist and what makes it tick, not why it exists.

 

[mdwh]

And I still contend that you can't use "Why" as one of the questions that scientists are trying to answer. That's at the root of the issues between religion and science. Religion wants to know the purpose of the universe and doesn't care how it happened. Science wants to discover how it came to exist and what makes it tick, not why it exists.

There are two meanings of "why" here, which are being confused. Science answers "why" in the sense of "what caused this thing to happen", and I used it in that sense.

"Why" in the sense of "For what purpose" on the other hand is outside of the scope of science, as you say. Religion assumes there is a purpose, and states answers for these questions.

 

[AlanH]

Science answers "why" in the sense of "what caused this thing to happen"

"Why?" always means "For what reason or purpose?", and has to be asked of some reasoning or purposeful entity. If you are going to complain about my misuse of English words, I have the right of reply

 

[Pokurcz]

Civ 2 mixed up two separate mistakes.

Quote from Wiki
"To perfect his find — the largest dinosaur ever discovered at the time and nearly complete, lacking only a head, feet, and portions of the tail — for what was to be the first ever display of a sauropod skeleton, at Yale's Peabody Museum in 1905, Marsh added some feet he had discovered at the same quarry, a tail fabricated to appear as he believed it should and what he apparently felt was the "correct" skull for the massive creature. This was not a delicate Diplodocus-style skull, matching what was actually a large Apatosaurus skeleton but, instead, a chimaera composed of "the biggest, thickest, strongest skull bones, lower jaws and tooth crowns from three different quarries", primarily those of Camarasaurus. (This "scientific sloppiness" is considered to be symptomatic of undue haste resulting from Marsh's notorious rivalry with Edward Drinker Cope, which would later become known as the "Bone Wars".)"

"The Brontosaurus was misidentified by its discoverer Othniel Charles Marsh, in 1879 and the designation persisted as the official term in the literature until at least 1974."

My father has an old book with dinosaur drawings with the Brontosaurus depicted with a chunky skull with a ridge on top.

Civ 2
"For scientists science is also a dogma.
I wasn't born religious.
In my early age (until some 12 maybe) I used to like the dino-theme.
So I'm quite informed about that.
(I read lots of books while I was still a small boy.)"

So you base your knowledge of paleontology on ilustrated books for children?
How Quaint.

Civ2
"Boris Godunov
Provide a useful example yourself.
If you can't see irony in my posts - then YOU are definitely childish."

The problem, Civ2, is that there is no way to distinguish the "irony" or jokes in your posts on this thread from what you take seriously.

It is all equaly infantile.

I have to correct myself, you did write this one thing wich is on the spot:

"Science does its best "...." to understand the physical realm whilst religion trys to explain spiritual realms.
They shouldn't get into each other's realms."

Dough I had to leave one part out.

You should folow your own advice.

 

[Shaihulud]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

The adaptation of bacterias when exposed consistently to antibiotics, after a few generations, the isolated culture will gain resistance to antibiotics. Insects can also gain immunities to certain insecticides that were used to kill them. It is easier to observe the evolution of creatures that have a very fast birth rate, thats why i used insects and bacteria to illustrate my point. That animals can adapt to certain conditions if consistently exposed to it for many generations is without doubt. Evolution is this small adaptation taken to many many more generations, with minute changes, the original organism has transformed into something much different from the original.

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

It seems logical that evolution is 100% correct precluding supernatural interference. The supernatural throws everything off whack, and noone has proven supernatural occurences exist.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

I see it as compatible with God as the secret hand behind the events. God being omniscience as he is started things rolling on course, the creation of the Universe and the beginning of sentient life, he doesn't even have to intervene.

 

[classical_hero]

The adaptation of bacterias when exposed consistently to antibiotics, after a few generations, the isolated culture will gain resistance to antibiotics. Insects can also gain immunities to certain insecticides that were used to kill them. It is easier to observe the evolution of creatures that have a very fast birth rate, thats why i used insects and bacteria to illustrate my point. That animals can adapt to certain conditions if consistently exposed to it for many generations is without doubt. Evolution is this small adaptation taken to many many more generations, with minute changes, the original organism has transformed into something much different from the original.

That is not a good example of evolutions because all you are doing is killing off the non resistant bacteria leaving those that are resistant and allowing them to just multiply by themselves without the interaction to the non-resist strain of the bacteria.
Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

That is not a good example of evolutions because all you are doing is killing off the non resistant bacteria leaving those that are resistant and allowing them to just multiply by themselves without the interaction to the non-resist strain of the bacteria.

This is the bit where you claim that all traits that ever seemed to evolve were actually present since the start and just got selected for, right?

Is Bacterial Resistance an Example of Evolutionary Change?

Bit freaking long of an article for me to deconstruct now, but it looks like they're saying "mutation never has positive effects". Is this what you're trying to say?

 

[mdwh]

"Why?" always means "For what reason or purpose?", and has to be asked of some reasoning or purposeful entity.

Yes, there's "for what reason?" and "for what purpose?". The latter implies some purpose which science cannot answer, but the former can also mean asking what caused this to happen. For example, "Why did this person die?" can have two types of answers:

1. "He died because of a bullet wound to the chest, which did such-and-such damage to his internal organs".
2. "He died because someone shot him for such-and-such reason".

The latter is the non-scientific answer which assumes a purpose for his death. But the former is still answering "Why", and is in the realms of science.

If you are going to complain about my misuse of English words, I have the right of reply

Actually I think you were complaining about my use of English words (i.e, "why") and I'm simply pointing out that my usage is correct.

 

[Boris Godunov]

This is the bit where you claim that all traits that ever seemed to evolve were actually present since the start and just got selected for, right?

Bit freaking long of an article for me to deconstruct now, but it looks like they're saying "mutation never has positive effects". Is this what you're trying to say?

It does, and it's ludicrous:

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

I'm wondering how classical hero would explain the Nylon Bug, a bacteria that subsists solely on a completely human-made, artificial substance that has only existed for 60 years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

 

[Erik Mesoy]

It does, and it's ludicrous:

http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

I'm wondering how classical hero would explain the Nylon Bug, a bacteria that subsists solely on a completely human-made, artificial substance that has only existed for 60 years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

It was always able to eat nylon, the ability just got selected for recently?

Now, if there are so many latent abilities present in all species, this gives us a new and effective tool for measuring the time until Doomsday. Just find out how many inactive genes exist that code for not-yet-useful abilities, divide by how many genes code for abilities in use (or, the number of genes with a known function) and multiply by 6000 years, and there you have how many years it will be until the Second Coming.

 

[civ2]

However, I consider the method of "I say it so it must be true" or "This book says this so it must be true" to be flawed. I consider the scientific method not to be flawed.

Ehem...
Which scientific knowledge came to you NOT from either books or teachers???
Did you ever dig a fossil?
Did you fly to space?
Did you partake in any experiment outside your school/university?
Answer for most people (and probably you too) is NO!!!
So you do "believe" in the information given by books - only those were written by people YOU CHOSE to think being right.
That's the main difference between you and me - we simply approve different sources.
According to YOUR idea - both sources are identical in adequacy.

You all definitely misunderstand the very idea of the word religion used by me.
Anything that is outside of one's personal experience IS his belief!
It differs only in sources.
Have you been to Antarctica(or Africa? or Sun?)?
How come you think it's cold (or warm? or hot?) there?
Isn't it your belief?
You have no "outside-of-belief" proof unless you yourself was there - which is not true for the majority of people.
Again - just different sources.

 

[Steph]

Did you ever dig a fossil?

Yes

Did you fly to space?

No, but flying in a plane is enough to see the Earth is not flat.

Did you partake in any experiment outside your school/university?

Plenty

That's the main difference between you and me - we simply approve different sources.
According to YOUR idea - both sources are identical in adequacy.

Completly wrong. We approve verified and verifiable sources. You don't. It's your idea that make them identical in adequacy.

Have you been to Antarctica(or Africa? or Sun?)?

I've been to Africa, and plenty other places.

How come you think it's cold (or warm? or hot?) there?

Because I experienced it.

Again - just different sources.

Can't you see a slight difference between an information about Africa, coming from many sources who have been there, and that can be repeated "easily" (just buy a plane ticket and go there), and religion?
Can you buy a plane ticket to Heaven, go there, and come back to tell us how is it?

 

[civ2]

Steph
So you dug out a fossil?
And what was that I wonder?
And did you identify it by yourself using no other people or books?
I never said Earth is flat - just an example of a hard-to-get-there place.
Same goes to Sun btw.
I wonder what kind of experiments were those - tell me more.
Why do I have to believe you when you say it's hot in Africa?
(Maybe it's hot according to you since you lived in Northern Europe since birth?)
Evolution and history have no verifiable sources since you can't go back in time to prove or disprove anything - it's all up to your belief.
And again "small-scale" evolution doesn't imply "large-scale" evolution to be true.
Winning a lottery ONCE doesn't prove you'll win again at all.
And since evolution is basically a lottery of genes.

THEORIES THEORIES - don't make them into facts!
You have no FACTS about that long-ago past.
And bones do not speak.
I don't have to be a scientific genius (and YOU are not either ) to see LOGICAL incongruency in these theories.

 

[Sidhe]

Civ 2
"For scientists science is also a dogma.
I wasn't born religious.
In my early age (until some 12 maybe) I used to like the dino-theme.
So I'm quite informed about that.
(I read lots of books while I was still a small boy.)"

So you base your knowledge of paleontology on ilustrated books for children?
How Quaint.

unlike religion though it's central dogmatic tennants are proof and reliable proof.

Science is in a constant state of evolution as it dies and reinvents it, in fact the more rapidly it changes the stronger it becomes, it is the antithesis of religion in this way which pretty much can't change, especially from a creationist point of view.

Religion is fine but don't get involved with science, science generally dismisses creationism out of hand, you wont find serious scientists discussing this issue, there's no point, the other side has no cohesive or scientifically valid argument, now if science can ignore you, why don't you do the same? Maybe then we can do ourselves a favour and dismiss the irelevant nonsense and stick to just the facts.

CIv2 I'm not sure what your trying to say? I too have dug a fossil out of the ground and then found it in a book, what's your point. Also I don't have to directly observe ancient ruins to surmise that the Minoan civilisation existed, I can look at the work of others and make up my own mind quite easily? If you believe that only by seeing and experiencing something can it be true, then why on Earth do you believe in God? Your logic is flawed. May I sugest you actually find out about the science before you start criticising it as well, bones may not speak but with the right equipment there is a hell of alot of things they can tell us, if you want to maintain there are holes in the theory, do some work find out what they are and then present them, we can then go about destroying them as usual on the evolution vs creationism thread.

THEORIES THEORIES - don't make them into facts!
You have no FACTS about that long-ago past.
And bones do not speak.
I don't have to be a scientific genius (and YOU are not either ) to see LOGICAL incongruency in these theories.

You do have to know what your talking about though really, your argument carries no weight, just saying you can see logical inconsistencies is hot air, unless you enlighten us as to what they are specifically.