Evolution problems

[SeattleGriz]

Great article which articulates what I have been saying.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... aways.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A great selected quote:

To be fair though, one should not expect the practitioners and promoters of a theory to be serious skeptics. Evolutionists sometimes say they would love to falsify their theory, as that would make them famous. But in science there are enormous conformance pressures, ranging from social to monetary. And this is even more so with evolution. If you genuinely question evolution (not just question a sub hypothesis) then you become an anathema. You will be called a creationist. You will be blackballed and rather than becoming famous, you become infamous.

Don't be a pussy. Read the article.

[Chizzang]

And of course you completely miss the point of "science" and even the apologist author Cornelius Hunter stumbles around with this one... The beauty of science is all things can be revised on further evidence

And so: right out of your copied article
As Stephen J. Gould put it, “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly revised.”

This is the awesome thing about science and the study of evolution - when more evidence makes itself available then the accumulated data makes room for different conclusions

Much unlike Creationism:
which hinges itself desperately on ONE foregone conclusion and circles all the wagons around that while apologizing for the historical MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary

Poor Cornelius Hunter has been working for 25 years to desperately make room for his iron age Christian God inside of Biological Science and Evolutionary studies...
It's like watching Sisyphus in a cardigan sweater

[SeattleGriz]

And of course you completely miss the point of "science" and even the apologist author Cornelius Hunter stumbles around with this one... The beauty of science is all things can be revised on further evidence

And so: right out of your copied article
As Stephen J. Gould put it, “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly revised.”

This is the awesome thing about science and the study of evolution - when more evidence makes itself available then the accumulated data makes room for different conclusions

Much unlike Creationism:
which hinges itself desperately on ONE foregone conclusion and circles all the wagons around that while apologizing for the historical MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary

Poor Cornelius Hunter has been working for 25 years to desperately make room for his iron age Christian God inside of Biological Science and Evolutionary studies...
It's like watching Sisyphus in a cardigan sweater

Really. I miss the point.

Why do we rely on the "evolution of the gaps" for everything that is evolution? That is his point. It doesn't quite fit our expected results, but we will keep pounding it home until we bash that square peg in the round hole.

How long do we give shitty predictions from the theory the benefit of the doubt? Puleaze. Give evolution time and it will be solved - What? Evolution of the Gaps = shit science.

I don't get why people can't accept the theory of evolution is incomplete. Nothing wrong with saying it is 65% of the way there. It still doesn't change the fact is is a good theory, just incomplete.

Please lay those mountains out for us, so I can rip a hole all throughout them.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article, and great post.

[SeattleGriz]

Are you so willing to allow Intelligent Design the opportunity to lay down a prediction and be wrong, only to say, it will be figured out later?

[Chizzang]

And of course you completely miss the point of "science" and even the apologist author Cornelius Hunter stumbles around with this one... The beauty of science is all things can be revised on further evidence

And so: right out of your copied article
As Stephen J. Gould put it, “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly revised.”

This is the awesome thing about science and the study of evolution - when more evidence makes itself available then the accumulated data makes room for different conclusions

Much unlike Creationism:
which hinges itself desperately on ONE foregone conclusion and circles all the wagons around that while apologizing for the historical MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary

Poor Cornelius Hunter has been working for 25 years to desperately make room for his iron age Christian God inside of Biological Science and Evolutionary studies...
It's like watching Sisyphus in a cardigan sweater

I beg to differ.

Why do we rely on the "evolution of the gaps" for everything that is evolution? That is his point. It doesn't quite fit our expected results, but we will keep pounding it home until we bash that square peg in the round hole.

How long do we give shitty expectations the benefit of the doubt? Puleaze. Give evolution time and it will be solved - What? Evolution of the Gaps = shit science.

I don't get why people can't accept the theory of evolution is incomplete. Nothing wrong with saying it is 65% of the way there. It still doesn't change the fact is is a good theory, just incomplete.

Please lay those mountains out for us.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article.

We all get it...
If Evolution is the answer then somehow it diminishes your ability to believe in your God
In light of that you and Cornelius will defend creationism (for obvious reasons)

But: Why not just modify the criteria and adjust "Your God"..?
Forget about the Bible and Jesus and all that crap for a few minutes
and ponder the notion that if the Bible were being written today (right now) what would God look like?

What is the God of Now?
No fairy tales - no mythology - but RIGHT NOW considering all the things we know about the earth right now and everything we know about the Universe right now...

What does THAT God look like..?

[SeattleGriz]

I beg to differ.

Why do we rely on the "evolution of the gaps" for everything that is evolution? That is his point. It doesn't quite fit our expected results, but we will keep pounding it home until we bash that square peg in the round hole.

How long do we give shitty expectations the benefit of the doubt? Puleaze. Give evolution time and it will be solved - What? Evolution of the Gaps = shit science.

I don't get why people can't accept the theory of evolution is incomplete. Nothing wrong with saying it is 65% of the way there. It still doesn't change the fact is is a good theory, just incomplete.

Please lay those mountains out for us.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article.

We all get it...
If Evolution is the answer then somehow it diminishes your ability to believe in your God
In light of that you and Cornelius will defend creationism (for obvious reasons)

But: Why not just modify the criteria and adjust "Your God"..?
Forget about the Bible and Jesus and all that crap for a few minutes
and ponder the notion that if the Bible were being written today (right now) what would God look like?

What is the God of Now?
No fairy tales - no mythology - but RIGHT NOW considering all the things we know about the earth right now and everything we know about the Universe right now...

What does THAT God look like..?

Once again, thank you for the thought out reply.

Okay, on to what you are saying. If Evolution is the answer, it in NO WAY diminishes what I believe, for I am a theistic evolutionist. Evolution on my part, is PART of His intelligent design. I know that is totally weak, but you seem to think I am at loggerheads with evolution, when I am not. I simply believe the theory is incomplete.

If a theory is to hold it's weight, it should be able to take input and produce reliable output, but that is not what we get. We currently get good input, shit output. You say, "give it time", when if that response was given outside of the evolution community, it would be called "God of the gaps".

I keep saying that ID's best hope is bioinformatics, and they are making inroads, but in the meantime, they should not be criticized for pointing out bullshit.

Why do you big guns of evolution refuse to get in debates. Because they have no answers, and when they do, they are held to a stalemate.

[SeattleGriz]

I beg to differ.

Why do we rely on the "evolution of the gaps" for everything that is evolution? That is his point. It doesn't quite fit our expected results, but we will keep pounding it home until we bash that square peg in the round hole.

How long do we give shitty expectations the benefit of the doubt? Puleaze. Give evolution time and it will be solved - What? Evolution of the Gaps = shit science.

I don't get why people can't accept the theory of evolution is incomplete. Nothing wrong with saying it is 65% of the way there. It still doesn't change the fact is is a good theory, just incomplete.

Please lay those mountains out for us.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article.

We all get it...
If Evolution is the answer then somehow it diminishes your ability to believe in your God
In light of that you and Cornelius will defend creationism (for obvious reasons)

But: Why not just modify the criteria and adjust "Your God"..?
Forget about the Bible and Jesus and all that crap for a few minutes
and ponder the notion that if the Bible were being written today (right now) what would God look like?

What is the God of Now?
No fairy tales - no mythology - but RIGHT NOW considering all the things we know about the earth right now and everything we know about the Universe right now...

What does THAT God look like..?

The God of right now could easily be different what I believe (isn't that a form of idolatry on my part).

I can readily admit, God can be something I don't understand at all, for how am I to know?

I am not as easily pegged in as you think.

[travelinman67]

Are you so willing to allow Intelligent Design the opportunity to lay down a prediction and be wrong, only to say, it will be figured out later?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!




I have an atheist friend, CSUS Alum, who when faced with a question he can't answer, goes manic and will spend days intensely fixated on his inability to come up with a "logical" answer. He wasn't able to hold a job for more than a couple of years...never had a successful relationship...has few friends. Lives a tragic life. Basically, self-destructive.

[SeattleGriz]

Are you so willing to allow Intelligent Design the opportunity to lay down a prediction and be wrong, only to say, it will be figured out later?

NOOOOOOOOO!!!




I have an atheist friend, CSUS Alum, who when faced with a question he can't answer, goes manic and will spend days intensely fixated on his inability to come up with a "logical" answer. He wasn't able to hold a job for more than a couple of years...never had a successful relationship...has few friends. Lives a tragic life. Basically, self-destructive.

Oh man, I didn't know Cleets was a Hornet.

No wait. It was D1B waiting on his Mensa invitation.

[JohnStOnge]

One thing about it is that there's the assumption that an unvalidated methodology was used to reach the finding. I'm talking about the use of molecular biology. It's one of those things where a field makes statements all the time about things that happened thousands, tens of thousands, and millions of years ago based on what are essentially mathematical models and there is no way to actually validate the idea that the models reliably establish what they're believed to establish. No way to jump into a time machine and actually confirm, for instance, that what the molecular biologists say happened during the evolutionary history of the spiders actually happened.

To me there's a lot of stuff like that in science. Scientists will make very confident sounding statements about what happened a million years ago or what's going on with some star they believe to be a million light years away based on information that's not really direct observation. It's based on them assuming they know how things work over such time intervals and distances. But there's no way they or any of us will ever really know that their assumptions are correct. I guess it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[CAA Flagship]

I beg to differ.

Why do we rely on the "evolution of the gaps" for everything that is evolution? That is his point. It doesn't quite fit our expected results, but we will keep pounding it home until we bash that square peg in the round hole.

How long do we give shitty expectations the benefit of the doubt? Puleaze. Give evolution time and it will be solved - What? Evolution of the Gaps = shit science.

I don't get why people can't accept the theory of evolution is incomplete. Nothing wrong with saying it is 65% of the way there. It still doesn't change the fact is is a good theory, just incomplete.

Please lay those mountains out for us.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article.

We all get it...
If Evolution is the answer then somehow it diminishes your ability to believe in your God
In light of that you and Cornelius will defend creationism (for obvious reasons)

But: Why not just modify the criteria and adjust "Your God"..?
Forget about the Bible and Jesus and all that crap for a few minutes
and ponder the notion that if the Bible were being written today (right now) what would God look like?

What is the God of Now?
No fairy tales - no mythology - but RIGHT NOW considering all the things we know about the earth right now and everything we know about the Universe right now...

What does THAT God look like..?

[CID1990]

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.

[SeattleGriz]

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.

[Chizzang]

Yes,
Every desperate creationist misses the point...

The THEORY is largely observable - unlike gods miracles - so we have to take the available evidence and construct that using the best data, and until God does something to show us (like he used to do all the time) in the iron age we're stuck with this crappy old "evolution" thing

The OTHER theory you keep begging everybody to incorporate - because evolution only answers 65% of the questions - is NOT a theory its a religion and its not based on observable science and it doesn't answer ANY of the questions

[SeattleGriz]

Yes,
Every desperate creationist misses the point...

The THEORY is largely observable - unlike gods miracles - so we have to take the available evidence and construct that using the best data, and until God does something to show us (like he used to do all the time) like back in the iron age we're stuck with this crappy old "evolution" thing

The OTHER theory you keep begging everybody to incorporate - because evolution only answers 65% of the questions - is NOT a theory its a religion and its not based on observable science

You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself where macroevolution is concerned. You should just stop.

[Chizzang]

Yes,
Every desperate creationist misses the point...

The THEORY is largely observable - unlike gods miracles - so we have to take the available evidence and construct that using the best data, and until God does something to show us (like he used to do all the time) like back in the iron age we're stuck with this crappy old "evolution" thing

The OTHER theory you keep begging everybody to incorporate - because evolution only answers 65% of the questions - is NOT a theory its a religion and its not based on observable science

You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself. You should just stop.

Just whip out the Bible and I'll stop because that's really what you want to do

[Skjellyfetti]

Almost all scientific ideas are retooled as new information / new theories come about.

Newton's theory of gravity had to be retooled with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't think any scientist claims that evolution (or anything else) explains things 100% and accounts for everything 100%. That's the goal... not the starting point. Evolution will continue to be tweaked as we learn more. That isn't a problem with evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself. You should just stop.

Just whip out the Bible and I'll stop because that's really what you want to do

It's out. Will you now stop?

[SeattleGriz]

Almost all scientific ideas are retooled as new information / new theories come about.

Newton's theory of gravity had to be retooled with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't think any scientist claims that evolution (or anything else) explains things 100% and accounts for everything 100%. That's the goal... not the starting point. Evolution will continue to be tweaked as we learn more. That isn't a problem with evolution.

I understand that, but why do we see predictions that have to be retooled over and over? A good theory produces good predictions that don't require more and more complex mental gymnastics to make the prediction fit.

[Chizzang]

Almost all scientific ideas are retooled as new information / new theories come about.

Newton's theory of gravity had to be retooled with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't think any scientist claims that evolution (or anything else) explains things 100% and accounts for everything 100%. That's the goal... not the starting point. Evolution will continue to be tweaked as we learn more. That isn't a problem with evolution.

That's the THING that the hyper religious cannot understand...
Is the idea that "I" don't have to believe anything - I can just take the data that life presents to me and modify my beliefs as more data becomes available.

I am FREE to observe the world without a religious filter perpetually sifting data

Things can just "BE" as they are...


Frankly its liberating

[CID1990]

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.

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.

[SeattleGriz]

Ha! You guys are hilarious. Resorting to attacking the messenger so early in the conversation while bringing weak casual proof as your answers.

I have to watch my kid, but that will give you some time to brush up a little.

[SeattleGriz]

Almost all scientific ideas are retooled as new information / new theories come about.

Newton's theory of gravity had to be retooled with Einstein's theory of relativity.

I don't think any scientist claims that evolution (or anything else) explains things 100% and accounts for everything 100%. That's the goal... not the starting point. Evolution will continue to be tweaked as we learn more. That isn't a problem with evolution.

That's the THING that the hyper religious cannot understand...
Is the idea that "I" don't have to believe anything - I can just take the data that life presents to me and modify my beliefs as more data becomes available.

I am FREE to observe the world without a religious filter perpetually sifting data

Things can just "BE" as they are...


Frankly its liberating

Yeah, you sound free. Free to believe ONLY what you want. Another infamous Cleets-ism.

[Chizzang]

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"

[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"

I'm glad you brought Larry up, for he is often a big critic of the ID movement. As I told Cit awhile ago, I am open to the fact I may just be on the ID side of a pissing match. Much like saying Anne Coulter speaks for Conservatives.