Evolution problems

[Chizzang]

Anne Coulter... I love her

[Pwns]

Chizz, I thought you didn't respond to "bait" threads like this?

[SeattleGriz]

The framework of the mechanics of evolution are known, and although every new piece of evidence alters the chronology, the framework of the theory is only strengthened by new discoveries.

Saying that new evidence is continually proving evolutionary theory wrong is willful ignorance fueled by fear.

This ^ is key...
Its sad that Cornelius Hunter has spent an otherwise brilliant career attempting to wedge Jesus into every crack he finds in evolutionary theory

As I like to call Cornelius, Sisyphus in a cardigan sweater...
He has willfully accepted his punishment of perpetually pushing Jesus up a hill until the end of time



Larry Moran at the University of Toronto refers to Cornelius as "an amiable loon" and "hell bent on misinterpreting the data for the ID masses awaiting his every blog post"

Now that I have a chance. Glad you brought Larry Moran up, because at least you are researching the subject and I appreciate that. But, pulling up Moran, is like quoting the DailyKos.

Here is a nice tidbit on Dr Moran and his tantrum he threw over genetic research in which he didn't like the results:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/wh ... 64101.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other Darwin-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet Darwin-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.

Moran, for his part, thinks that all these other scientists aren't just wrong, but that they are misrepresenting the evidence -- with dire consequences for the public scientific debate over Darwinian evolution. Over on his blog, he's been filling pages with words, pleading with the ENCODE project researchers, and their friends in the media, to tone down their discussions of these results so as not to lend support to intelligent design (or as Moran unendingly puts it, "the creationists"). He writes, in various posts:

See why I referenced Coulter? This guy must be afraid his book sales will diminish.

[SeattleGriz]

Chizz, I thought you didn't respond to "bait" threads like this?

As stated. I will give Cleets big props for actually reading up on the subject. We may be at opposite ends, but I respect anyone who is willing to put forth an effort.

Unlike me, who just goes with my partisan hackary!!

...on subjects other than this one.

[SeattleGriz]

That exactly is one of my points. You are excusing evolution of the gaps here - we'll get there, just as long as we keep retooling our answers.

Good theories should produce good predictions, but evolutionary predictions are proven wrong over and over, only to see the field create a much more complex reason for it happening to excuse the poor results from their predictions.

Why do you think there is a growing amount of scientists who think the theory of evolution is lacking?

Once again, I am not saying evolution is wrong, for I certainly don't have a better competing theory, but we need to step back and stop allowing speculation to persist, where it should be science.

Gene mutation based on external factors is not speculation. It is observable fact that has been demonstrated over and over and over.

The framework of the mechanics of evolution are known, and although every new piece of evidence alters the chronology, the framework of the theory is only strengthened by new discoveries.

Saying that new evidence is continually proving evolutionary theory wrong is willful ignorance fueled by fear.

Gene mutation based on external factors. That is called Natural Selection and not in dispute.

By the way, how about this little experiment. What are you thoughts on this one?

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After 60,000 generations, the only change of substance is an ability to use citrate. Wow! Move a promoter and bam! Earthshaking science.

Where's our new evidence of macroevolution? Where is the distinct new species? There isn't one.

[Chizzang]

Chizz, I thought you didn't respond to "bait" threads like this?

meh... you're right

Me fighting to stay awake in yet another Evolution vs. Jesus thread

[SeattleGriz]

Chizz, I thought you didn't respond to "bait" threads like this?

meh... you're right

Me fighting to stay awake in yet another Evolution vs. Jesus thread

Because Jesus is kicking your ass in this thread. You have only made references to religion and nothing of scientific substance... and I'm the one who doesn't get it? Typical Cleets. Won't answer the question, just makes a statement that he feels like making.

Oh wait. You did reference Larry Moran who isn't taken seriously by anybody.

Guess you should get a refund on your theology 101 class because it isn't helping you here. Bwahaha.

[Grizalltheway]

Says the guy who thinks his imaginary friend is helping him win an internet argument, and can't seem to figure out the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

[Vidav]

Jesus has less evidence than evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

Says the guy who thinks his imaginary friend is helping him win an internet argument, and can't seem to figure out the difference between scientific theory and scientific law.

Nice try. Next!

[SeattleGriz]

Jesus has less evidence than evolution.

As always, thanks for chiming in Vidav, but this isn't about Jesus. It's about the problems with Evolution and the community's ability to use a "Evolution of the gaps" approach instead of examining the theory and retooling it where necessary.

I have stated before, I do not believe God will EVER be proven, but it doesn't mean we won't find some "intelligent agent" at work that we don't know about.

That agent could easily be some natural law we don't know yet.

To summarize, the evolution field finds the need to say that 21/7=6.93 They keep coming up with excuses why their theory doesn't produce a 7.

[Vidav]

SeaGriz, it seems more like you refuse to see the evidence and theory for what it is. You tend to look for issues where there aren't any.

[Skjellyfetti]

To summarize, the evolution field finds the need to say that 21/7=6.93 They keep coming up with excuses why their theory doesn't produce a 7.

I think you mean 3.

[SeattleGriz]

SeaGriz, it seems more like you refuse to see the evidence and theory for what it is. You tend to look for issues where there aren't any.

You could very well be correct. I have considered that. It wasnt in this thread, but I have previously admitted I go to sites that look for discrepancies.

[CID1990]

yawn

[houndawg]

To summarize, the evolution field finds the need to say that 21/7=6.93 They keep coming up with excuses why their theory doesn't produce a 7.

I think you mean 3.

Oh dear...

[houndawg]

I have not found or seen compelling evidence that evolutionary science ignores new information which invalidates previous assumptions.

As we speak, a new genetic line in our own history has been discovered (the Denisovians) which is causing scientists to rethink exactly how the modern human evolved and what it was prior to the mixing of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

The accusation that evolutionary science is tainted in the same way climate science is is absurd.

That exactly is one of my points. You are excusing evolution of the gaps here - we'll get there, just as long as we keep retooling our answers.

Good theories should produce good predictions, but evolutionary predictions are proven wrong over and over, only to see the field create a much more complex reason for it happening to excuse the poor results from their predictions.

Why do you think there is a growing amount of scientists who think the theory of evolution is lacking?

Once again, I am not saying evolution is wrong, for I certainly don't have a better competing theory, but we need to step back and stop allowing speculation to persist, where it should be science.

If evolutionary predictions are wrong so often you'd think that some up and coming young scientist would come with a different theory. One that is better than "it must be creationism if evolution is wrong".

[CID1990]

That exactly is one of my points. You are excusing evolution of the gaps here - we'll get there, just as long as we keep retooling our answers.

Good theories should produce good predictions, but evolutionary predictions are proven wrong over and over, only to see the field create a much more complex reason for it happening to excuse the poor results from their predictions.

Why do you think there is a growing amount of scientists who think the theory of evolution is lacking?

Once again, I am not saying evolution is wrong, for I certainly don't have a better competing theory, but we need to step back and stop allowing speculation to persist, where it should be science.

If evolutionary predictions are wrong so often you'd think that some up and coming young scientist would come with a different theory. One that is better than "it must be creationism if evolution is wrong".

dude the cognitive dissonance required to consider what we know about genetics, environmental stressors, natural selection, hell the goddam fossil record...

to consider an acknowledge all of these things taken in totality AND THEN proclaim that it is all junk and meaningless and that we were created put if nothing something like 6000 years ago

i simply have no words other than to simply say that it is willful, purposeful ignorance

it is literally stunning

[SeattleGriz]

If evolutionary predictions are wrong so often you'd think that some up and coming young scientist would come with a different theory. One that is better than "it must be creationism if evolution is wrong".

dude the cognitive dissonance required to consider what we know about genetics, environmental stressors, natural selection, hell the goddam fossil record...

to consider an acknowledge all of these things taken in totality AND THEN proclaim that it is all junk and meaningless and that we were created put if nothing something like 6000 years ago

i simply have no words other than to simply say that it is willful, purposeful ignorance

it is literally stunning

Do you not read before you post? Talk about purposeful ignorance. I have stated over and over how I feel evolution is the proper theory, it just needs something other than natural selection and mutation. I happen to think that something is an intelligent agent.

[SeattleGriz]

That exactly is one of my points. You are excusing evolution of the gaps here - we'll get there, just as long as we keep retooling our answers.

Good theories should produce good predictions, but evolutionary predictions are proven wrong over and over, only to see the field create a much more complex reason for it happening to excuse the poor results from their predictions.

Why do you think there is a growing amount of scientists who think the theory of evolution is lacking?

Once again, I am not saying evolution is wrong, for I certainly don't have a better competing theory, but we need to step back and stop allowing speculation to persist, where it should be science.

If evolutionary predictions are wrong so often you'd think that some up and coming young scientist would come with a different theory. One that is better than "it must be creationism if evolution is wrong".

How do you think that scientist would be received? Evolutionists who think the theory needs help get plenty of threats of losing their university positions if they don't tow the line.

That, and I have not saidf evolution is wrong, what I have said is that results are shoehorned into the theory when the predictions prove inaccurate.

Look up junk DNA if you want to see an inaccurate prediction that was carried on and on until genetics finally got sophisticated enough to prove them wrong.

[Vidav]

dude the cognitive dissonance required to consider what we know about genetics, environmental stressors, natural selection, hell the goddam fossil record...

to consider an acknowledge all of these things taken in totality AND THEN proclaim that it is all junk and meaningless and that we were created put if nothing something like 6000 years ago

i simply have no words other than to simply say that it is willful, purposeful ignorance

it is literally stunning

Do you not read before you post? Talk about purposeful ignorance. I have stated over and over how I feel evolution is the proper theory, it just needs something other than natural selection and mutation. I happen to think that something is an intelligent agent.

It honestly is just that you don't truly understand evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

Do you not read before you post? Talk about purposeful ignorance. I have stated over and over how I feel evolution is the proper theory, it just needs something other than natural selection and mutation. I happen to think that something is an intelligent agent.

It honestly is just that you don't truly understand evolution.

Really, what don't I understand?

[Vidav]

It honestly is just that you don't truly understand evolution.

Really, what don't I understand?

You keep mentioning things like gaps and looking for fossils of transitional species. That doesn't happen. There are no transitional species. It's not like day 39 you have a rabbit and day 40 you have a duck. Or on day 39.4 you have a species that looks like both a rabbit and a duck. The changes are so small that you wouldn't detect them day by day or year by year. Please go read The Greatest Show On Earth.

[SeattleGriz]

Really, what don't I understand?

You keep mentioning things like gaps and looking for fossils of transitional species. That doesn't happen. There are no transitional species. It's not like day 39 you have a rabbit and day 40 you have a duck. Or on day 39.4 you have a species that looks like both a rabbit and a duck. The changes are so small that you wouldn't detect them day by day or year by year. Please go read The Greatest Show On Earth.

Then where are the fossils that show the graduation? If we gradually move from one species to the next, then where are the millions of skeletons? We should have a shit ton, but we don't. Darwin even knew this was an issue.

You ever done any research on what is found and what is "extrapolated" from the findings? It is amazing. To make it easy for you, look up Ida missing link and see what you find.

Paleontology should be viewed right up there with phrenology. Piltdown man!

[Skjellyfetti]

Evolution is demonstrated pretty clearly in the fossil record.

The problem is that creationists see the "gaps" and think that these gaps disprove evolution. If there is a demonstrated gap - creationists will demand that there be a fossil to fill the gap. When a fossil is found in that gap - they will demand that there be 2 more fossils to fill in the two new gaps created by the new fossil. It will go on and on like this until there is a 100% complete fossil record - and, when you account for how difficult it is for fossils to form and how difficult it is to discover the fossils a 100% fossil record ain't happening.