I wasn’t taking a position on this particular debate between you two. I was merely pointing out that TalkOrigins is very biased which calls into question it’s credibility.What do you not find credible about TalkOrigins?
In any case, ok, here is a link to a guy who has a PhD in chemical engineering who happens to be an evangelical Christian. Maybe he is not credible either.
members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Peace
Tim
And yet, the issue of truth seems central. One could just as easily argue: “Consider there are thousands and thousands of saints, long before Darwin’s time, who believed in a flat earth (or astrology, alchemy, or whatever) and got to Heaven, well…then it’s good enough for me!” Many will find themselves in heaven despite believing a lot of stupid things. The question, however, seems to be: Is it true?
I don’t really care if it is macro- micro- or any other type of evolution. However we got here, I know it is because of God’s doings. So, I also add that I believe scientific theory must adhere to the revealed Truths of God.
The claim that there are two different types of evolution (micro and macro) is not a scientific one. Rather it is one made by those who have decided that they will believe in a more literal reading of Genesis regardless of what the evidence is. It is impossible to ignore the small, gradual evolutionary changes that many pass off as “micro-evolution”, but it is easier to blow off the evidence of “macro-evolution”. Therefore, evolution is split into two groups.
It is amazing to me how often this misconception is repeated in these forums. I guess I will repeat it once again (and I am sure it won’t be the last time
). Nothing in science is proven. Evolution is exactly like nuclear theory or gravity or any other scientific theory in that sense.The fossil record DOES show gradations between species. Who told you it doesn’t?
You have been badly misled if you think the fossil record is now anything close to what it was in Darwin’s time. You need a different argument.
Please provide a source for that quote. I suspect that you have taken it out of context, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt, at least until is see the source.
Your assumption is wrong. We do see species changing into other species in the fossil record. Try again.
What do you mean “at once”? Regardless of what your fundamentalist sources tell you, those animals have changed during that time. You need to do a little scientific research, or I should say, you should research some scientific sources instead of your fundamentalist buddies who, unfortunately, are lying to you.
Once again, not that I doubt you, please provide a reference to this statement so we can see the context.
You really don’t understand evolution. You should study some of the science. It is fascinating.
Any source that takes a position is biased. That doesn’t make it invalid. CA is biased toward Catholicism. Would you consider CA an un-credible source for questions regarding the Church because it is biased toward the Church?
Not true at all. There are many theories but there are also many scientific certainties. I am surprised that you think nothing in science is proven fact.It is amazing to me how often this misconception is repeated in these forums. I guess I will repeat it once again (and I am sure it won’t be the last time
There were some in my post and there are many others if you look for them.
No, it does not. Many people who make their living working on this question (like Stephen Stanley) have made this very clear. I have been through every major pro-evolution source and website and as I said in my post they are all riddled with verbage like “probably”, “maybe”, “thought to have”, “believed to be”, “possibly”. Whether you talk about the ape-to-human chain, or the land animal-to-whale chain, or any other supposed evolutionary chain they all have gaps (usually huge ones) that leave them as no more scientifically proven than alien abductions.
Of course there have been more discoveries and many changes but in relation to evidence of macro-evolution it is absolutely unchanged. There is still not one scientifically proven instance of one species evolving into another. The argument is as solid now as it was then.
Which quote?
The only assumption is the one you are making that the fossil record shows this. It does not.
Making assumptions about the motivations of others you know nothing about is a violation of forum rules and a cop out. I do not use any “fundamentalist” sources. I rely on the research done by experts in the field who happen not to support the guesswork you mistakenly take as scientific proof. And my reference to “body types” meant mammals, six-legged insects, eight-legged arachnids, reptiles, etc. and no they have not changed. They are all still here in the exact same forms with no more recent additions.
Again you wrongly assume to know me. I understand evolution at it’s various levels fully. I utilize sources on both sides of the debate (as you should have determined from my post) which is something you apparantly do not do. It is you who need to take a better look at the science.
Then I will await your proof of gravitational theory.
There were none in the post I replied to. I have asked for this from several different posters and I am still waiting for scientific evidence against evolution.
As long as we don’t have fossil remains of every single animal that ever lived, we will have gaps. Are you suggesting that no scientific theory is valid if there are gaps in the knowledge? What scientific theory do you know of that has absolutely no gaps?
Once again, you are factually incorrect.
As I asked above, please provide one single scientific theory that has been “proven”.
The one from Stephen Stanley and the one from the biologist from the AMNH. You posted quotes from these two individuals. I would like a source of those quotes so that I can see in what context they were made.
Not an assumption.
Well then please report me to the moderators if you don’t like my characterization of people who keep making claims that they should know are false.
Great. Which sources are you using? I would be interested in checking them out.
What is the difference between the body type of a mammal and a reptile that was present at the start of the Cambrian? Were there air breathing animals with spines and either scales or fur or feathers?
I don’t assume anything of the sort. I have seen your arguments before and I have seen some of the major sources of that information. I base my arguments on that knowledge, not my knowledge of you.
I thought you said earlier in your post that you don’t use fundamentalist sites? How do you look at both sides without using those sites? Again, I am interested in your scientific sources that don’t accept evolution.
Are you kidding me ? I state correctly that in science there are both theories and facts and you respond by demanding proof of one theory as though nothing is proven unless that one theory is? I hope you can make a more logical case than that or we need not go on.
Modem genetics, breeding experiments, and the complete lack of proof in the fossil record are solid scientific arguments. The fact the you refuse to accept them does not make them go away.
Here is where you are confused. My point is that evolution is just that, a theory, not a proven fact. You acknowledge that in the preceeding sentence yet you still insist that it is fact. You contradict your own argument.
The quote from Stanley is from a paper he wrote on macroevolution and published through Johns Hopkins. It is not online but is available for purchase from many sources. Stanley is an adherent to the theory of “punctuated equilibrium” devised by Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History.
I do not whine to moderators, I expect people to be able to act properly without chastisement. That description sounds incredibly like yourself. As shown above you are arguing against facts that you ackowledge.
Here you admit your belief that “fundamentalists” are the only ones who recognize the invalidity of Darwinian evolution and simultaneously expose the fact that you are not well-read in any source other than the ones that you choose to believe.
You argue against evolution by saying it is not proven and then you attack me for asking for any scientific theory that has been proven? Give me ANY scientific theory that is proven. Why do you insist that only evolutionary theory be proven? Do you reject all “unproven” theories?
The FACT is is that those fields strongly support evolution and the fact that you refuse to accept them does not make them go away.
No confusion on my part. I claim that evolution is a fact. I also accept that the mechanism of evolution in the form of slow, gradual change is a scientific theory.
Ok, I’ll try again. What is the name of the paper you are quoting? What is the citation for the biologist you quoted in your earlier post?
You do realize that those men accept evolution as a fact, don’t you? They would argue for rapid speciation as the mechanism, but they would agree that evolution occurs. As Stephen J. Gould wrote:
See the above quote. It would seem that Gould would disagree with you.
My, my. I guess that same rule that you reminded me of doesn’t apply to you. Oh, well.
I am still waiting for you to name your sources.
I am interested in your sources. That is why I asked for them. I am sorry that you don’t want to continue this discussion.
You still make irrelevant arguments. Theories are theories and facts are facts. Darwinian evolution is not both as you claim, it is just an unproven theory. Everything known in science was once just a theory. Nuclear fission was once just a theory. Photosynthesis was once just a theory. Electricity was once just a theory. Once something is proven it is no longer a theory.
Now in this statement you are changing your tune to be more in line with what I said. The idea of one species gradually changing into another is a theory and has no definite supporting evidence. What you refer to as evolution that is a fact I would refer to as adaptation but I would not not say you are wrong because adapting could be referred to as evolving.
It is simply titled “Macroevolution”, by Stephen Stanley, and it is easy to find if you look. The biologist was Eldredge and he made the statement at a convention he attended with Gould.
I realize that they do not accept Darwinian evolution as fact and that they do not accept the notion that the fosil record shows even one transitional species and I agree with them. As to the rapid speciation they promote, that is also a theory (and an old one as my post showed), not a fact. Either one of these theories may one day be proven as fact, they just have no solid evidence yet. On the other side of the coin I think that creationism is another theory, not a scientific fact, and that it can never be proven. At least not until we go on to our hopeful reward.
Not at all. While he, Stanley, and Eldredge are often misquoted and taken out of context by Creationists they all recognized the lack of transitional species. In reference to the statement you posted, Gould never explained what he meant by “larger groups” or why “larger groups” showed transition whereas species did not, nor did he offer any specific examples, nor has anyone else since. He could have been merely referring to adaptation of various groups to changes in the enviroment which is known to occur quite often. His admission that evidence of transition between species was lacking is very telling. As I stated, the fossil record shows no such transitional species and Gould acknowledged that as fact. Despite his earlier statements, Gould admitted that a gargantuan hole existed in the evolutionary model. Gould and Eldredge went on record at a paleontology convention in Chicago admitting that, after 100 years of painstaking archeological research, no one was able to find any convincing transitional fossils (e.g., fish to amphibian; reptile to bird, etc), and because of this lack of evidence, classical Darwinism was unsupportable. This was the basis of his rejection of Darwinian evolution and transitional species and his developement of the theory of “punctuated equilibria”. His development of this new theory is all the proof one should need of his complete lack of support for the idea of transitional species and his rejection of the notion that any evidence of such species had been found.
And you have them. Funny that you make so many demands for sources and explanations (many of which like the demand for my “proof of gravitational theory” are irrelevent) but you offer up no such evidence to support your assertion that Darwinian evolution of one species to another is both theory and fact.
I only feel that way because these discussions always end up the same way. The evolutionists point me to sites like talkorigins as showing proof of Darwinian evolution and when I check them out (if I have not already done so) they are, as I said, riddled with “probably”, “maybe”, “thought to have”, “believed to be”, “possibly” and no other explanation of the gaping holes in their evolutionary chains. And that is supposed to amount to scientific proof. It does not.
Tim:
I have never claimed that darwinian evolution is a fact. I have consistently stated that evolution is a fact and the mechanism, be it darwinian or punctuated equilibrium, is a scientific theory.
Sorry, but that is exactly what I have always been saying. I have not changed anything.
I will look it up and read it. What is the citation for Eldredge?
They accept evolution as a fact. They only argue about the mechanism.
What scientific evidence (fact) do you base this on? If you have none, it is not a scientific theory.
Excuse me, but he said lacking, not non-existent.
Citation please. And by the way, archeology is not the field that studies fossil fish, amphibians or other life forms. That is called paleontology. Archeology is the study of early man and his civilizations.
I still don’t have all the citations and none of your reference material other than one paper by one person.
I accept every single part of the Crede.
Then we are not so far apart as it seemed. We agree that evolution as it is classically understood as happening through gradual changes through transitional species is just a theory without any conclusive proof. That was my whole point. The fact that changes occur within species or populations, what you call evolution and what others including me call adaptation is well proven.
What is the point of this line of argument? Yes, as I have said several times now, there are still and always will be theories but when a theory is conclusively proven accurate and true by science it is no longer just a theory, it is a fact.
Somewhere I actually have the old magazine that had a sidebar story on this event. Finding it is another issue. I am nearly certain it was Newsweek but I do not know the specific cover date.
I did not say it was a “scientific” theory.
There is no difference when no examples are offered. “Lacking” is a somewhat vague (possibly intentionally) way of saying non-existant. He did not say “scarce”, “rare”, or “infrequent”. He said “lacking”. If you “lack” something you do not have it.
Typo.
You actually expect me to provide you a bibliography of everything I have ever read? Can you do the same? I gave the reference for what I had quoted.
