O
Orogeny
Guest
Thanks for making my point. I bolded, italicized and enlarged the most important points.
The Pope accepts some form of evolution.
Peace
Tim
- Status
The Pope accepts some form of evolution.
Peace
Tim
H
hecd2
Guest
Although the first paragraph in this post is deliberately and inaccurately dismissive of the statistical skills of biologists, I find this challenge to the validity of conclusions that we can reach from the fossil record quite interesting because it puts a case, in a rather novel way, that is not obvious nonsense or rhetoric. I have also enjoyed the conversation between Teflon and Orogeny. I believe the challenge can be answered because it is based on a misunderstanding of the methods of palaeontologists and how palaeontologists currently work with systematists and molecular biologists. I also think that Teflon has made errors in his interpretations of statistics and sampling theory which invalidate much that he has to say, but to make my case I need a hook to get into the thread. Teflon and Orogeny have taken things forward rapidly, and I think that the best way to respond is to start with Teflon’s initial post rather than to link into their discussion. I’ll need more time than I have now, so this is a heads-up that I plan to get back to this, but it might take a day or two and then I’ll be going all the way back to this initial post by Teflon.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
O
Orogeny
Guest
Your definition and mine seem to be the same. Mendel’s findings fit well within the current theory.
I’m a geologist, not a physicist (in fact, I wasn’t particularly good at physics), but it seems to me that it is true for physics. When you talk about Newtonian physics, you are talking about one way we understand physics. That understanding works well in many situations but fails in others. Therefore, it is our understanding of the mechanism (Newtonian) that has gaps, not the actual physics.
No it isn’t. No scientific theory is complete (just ask reggieM). There are always things we don’t know, but that doesn’t invalidate the theory. If it did, there would be no valid scientific theories. And just to be clear, when I mention gaps, I mean areas that we are lacking data not that there is a flaw in the theory.
Why would a mass extinction event be a dodge? Not everything became extinct at the KT event. Mammals were able to survive the asteroid impact and/or anything else that contributed to the mass extinction. They were “fit” in the sense that they were able to not only survive the event but were able to reproduce and continue on. The dinosaurs (at least the non-avian ones) were not able to do the same thing. Evolution in action!
No, all species today are able to survive in the present environment. Their ancestors were able to survive their environments. I predict that any animal that isn’t able to survive if the climate changes will not continue as a species.
I don’t know about hypothesizing population size, but we know that they existed and that they evolved.
Is the problem you have simply the description and size of hominid populations? The first is impossible to determine if you don’t have a population total to calculate a “sufficient” sample. The second and third seem to be simply needed to describe that specific population.
The fact is is that if we find one individual, we know that a population of some size existed. If the morphology found in that one specimen turns up in another fossil found at a later time, we can legitimately correlate the two. We may not be able to extrapolate a total population number, but I have no problem stating that they existed.
I think that you misunderstood what I was saying. My question is this. Do you have any reason to think that the have been organisms in the past that left no fossils and were not subject to evolution? I know that NO “evolution advocate” would tell you that there were/are populations of organisms that are not subject to evolution.
I know of no such claim in science. Could you give me a reference that extrapolates the existence of an animal worldwide based on a single fossil collection site?
Not for me it isn’t. Climatology is an incredibly complex science that many people think that they understand when in reality they don’t have a clue. So I would prefer to discuss paleontology, something I do know about.
Do you have a scientific reason to think that they are not?
Really? Were they just formed exactly as they are now? Are they special creations or are they the original life form?
Absolutely. That doesn’t say a thing about whether or not they evolved.
Ah, the dating question. Sorry, but there is no problem there. Radiodating is very well established science. Only those who don’t understand it or have an agenda say that there are problems with radiodating.
Peace
Tim
H
hecd2
Guest
Just a comment on this - it doesn’t “refute” Einstein, because the effect of gravity on light propagation is an important prediction of Einstein’s own theory of General Relativity and because the speed of light is a constant in GR in a free falling frame - in other words the speed of light is constant in a free falling frame in a gravitational field, but spacetime is curved so that the speed of light appears to vary to observers in a different frame. It’s basically a measure of the curvature of spacetime.
Einstein did not refute himself.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
O
Orogeny
Guest
What would you consider a transitional fossil?
Really?
Good. That is a wise approach.
I don’t like Dawkins, but not because of his science. That said, I am not aware that he has ever claime to have cracked the origins of life. Could you direct me to that?
Just for clarity, punctuated equilibrium is only one proposed (and I think valid) mechanism of evolution. As Gould noted, there are also the gradual changes that take place.
Agreed.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
“Some form”? You’re on here claiming that there is “a theory of evolution”. The Pope points out that there are “several” which are incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
Which evolutionists teach any of those “several” theories?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, coming from someone who insists that “several” is eqivalent of “all” and that the July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution was Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal opinion, I don’t expect that you would comprehend any answer I were to give you.
By the way, how about that evidence?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Sungenis should be denigrated. He is an embarrasment to the faith. And the only reason I mentioned him is that this entire thread was started by a follower of his and Sungenis was quoted by the OP.
Right. That is how any good evolutionist would see it.
Open minded? Well, are you open minded when someone says that Jesus didn’t really exist but was a creation of a man named Paul? Are you open minded when you read Dawkin’s book “The God Delusion”?
I am not open minded to information that I know is false. I know that we don’t use the results from a single fossil locale to claim that those animals were existent around the world. I know that we don’t make up dates and that the science behind radiodating is very, very solid.
Yes. You agree that evolution is a fact. That is the truth.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
… there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of … [any theories of evolution] which **explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.
Tim’s “*the *theory of evolution”(???) … all of the following condemned by the Holy See as “thus incompatible with the Catholic faith” …
(Altenberg organizer, Massimo Pigliucci collaborated on this open letter)
The NABT leaves open the possibility that evolution is in fact supervised in a personal manner. This is a prospect that every evolutionary biologist should vigorously and positively deny. All we know so far about the evolutionary process tells us that **there is no supervision **except for the action of natural selection. Furthermore, a personal involvement would imply some “person” who would take care of directing the evolutionary process one way or the other. The fossil record, as well as the importance of random events such as catastrophes, mass extinctions, and genetic drift, assure us that such a personal involvement has not happened.
In conclusion, we reiterate that evolution indeed is, to the best of our knowledge, an impersonal and unsupervised process.
Evolution is “deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,” the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."Darwin’s brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike “perfection” of honeybees’ combs or ant trails…reveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.
— Humes, Edward. 2007. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul. New York: Ecco, 119
The National Association of Biology Teachers [NABT] in their 1995 Official Statement on Teaching Evolution stated the following: “The diversity of life [all life] on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.”
The meaning of ‘evolution’
Similarly, Douglas Futuyma, in his widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology, writes: By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous (Futuyma 1998, p. 5).
Francisco J. Ayala, **president of the AAAS **and the chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ steering committee for its 1999 edition of Science and Creationism, likewise speaks of **Darwinism as having excluded God **as the explanation accounting for the obvious design of organisms (Ayala 1994, p. 5).
R
reggieM
Guest
You’ve claimed that there are “no flaws” in the theory of evolution. You haven’t specified which of the “several” theories you hold as your own personal version. Perhaps you mean that there are “no flaws in any of the several theories of evolution”.
Not bad – even contradictory theories have “no flaws” in them.
In any case, your point that there are “no flaws in the theory of evolution” stands unless someone can come up with at least one thing that could be considered a “flaw” in the theory.
Until then, we must accept that the-your-all-of-the theory(ies) of evolution is (are) “flawless”.
You win. Let’s go out and proclaim it far and wide – just like you do.
T
Teflon93
Guest
This is a good point; of course I didn’t say Einstein refuted himself either.
He may appear to have done so simply because so many take the speed of light to be a constant and don’t think about the frame of reference at all.
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, but it’s also another thing to say that some claims of evolution have been proven wrong (falsified, in error). Additionally, if the claim is that “evolution explains all of the development of life”, this proposal is falsified whenever observed evidence in nature conflicts with “the theory of evolution”.
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’ll look forward to it, Alec, but bear in mind I’m not even talking advanced statistical analysis here but just basic sampling and measurement error. You’ll find this in any student’s statistics text.
As for the radiodating problem, the trouble is in sequencing samples. If I have a bunch of specimens from a similar strata, I have to be able to place them in sequence—earlier to later—to see change in characteristics over time. If the radiodating measurement error is wider than the variation in time of those samples, or even comparable to it, we’re in trouble, since the sequence may well be wrong.
I’m sure folks here are aware of the contamination problems which add to radiodating inaccuracy. It’s nothing new and well-documented. As techniques continue to improve, such measurement error should shrink and inferences become better and better at least within the samples we have (remember that we have no reason to believe that a particular sample is the 1st appearance of any species simply because it’s the earliest we’ve managed to date).
T
Teflon93
Guest
Yes, I think claiming that evolutionary claims have been falsified is wrong. If they had been, there’d be a lot less discussion.
Of course, anthropological global warming HAS been pretty definitively revealed to be false, including the bogus “hockey stick” which eliminated the observed Medieval Warming Period, and people are still walking around claiming that to be gospel. So maybe there’d be discussion even if God appeared to all tomorrow with the blueprint for creation in hand.
And once more, we should distinguish between working biological and anthropological researchers and hucksters like Dawkins.
It would of course be useful if more honest researchers took exception to the excesses of people overreaching the evidence for fun and profit but one can’t expect too much.
T
Teflon93
Guest
So once again, just for the record, I think Sungenis goes too far beyond the available evidence as well.
In his case this is mitigated by the fact that the definition of evolution is a slippery thing. We’ve had to define the term in this thread in order to move forward at all. When someone says they support or object to the theory of evolution one must inevitably go on to provide a list of specific claims since that umbrella has been so bastardized over the years.
In his case this is mitigated by the fact that the definition of evolution is a slippery thing. We’ve had to define the term in this thread in order to move forward at all. When someone says they support or object to the theory of evolution one must inevitably go on to provide a list of specific claims since that umbrella has been so bastardized over the years.
R
reggieM
Guest
If no evolutionary claims had been falsified, there would be no reason for refutations/changes represented by things like punctuated equilibrium (which evolutionists themselves cannot agree on), convergent evolution, genetic drift and self-organization – all of which are theories (and there are more) which were necessary because Darwin’s theory conflicted with the evidence found in nature (and thus was falsified).
I find that very difficult. Dawkins is one of the most prominent and highly-respected evolutionists in the world today. His view represents mainstream evolutionary theory as I see it. Although, I believe you asked earlier “what definition of ‘evolution’ are we using” and that is essential.
If someone proposes that their own “personal version” of evolutionary theory is the correct one, then that is difficult to accept also. All of the various theories cannot be correct. Maybe one is. But with so many conflicting ideas, it’s far more likely that no one theory of evolution is correct (thus, all are flawed, inadequate and conflict with observations in nature).
I fully agree. This would be a far more scientific approach to the question also.
H
hecd2
Guest
This is a manifestation of your contempt for the truth in your preference for statements that are blatant rhetoric and posturing.
You conflate the fact and theory of evolution (you’ve had the difference between these explained to you - I’m not going to repeat it) thereby implying by confusion that incompleteness in the Theory calls the fact into question. You constantly assert that biologists claim the Theory is complete when they do not, thereby attacking and beating a strawman to death. You constantly infer, dishonestly, that any development or modification of the Theory in the light of new knowledge completely undermines both the fact of evolution and falsifies the existing theory. You frequently take what people say and twist their words to score cheap debating points - you are not interested in trying to communicate or reach a common understanding, but merely to attack both the fact and theory of evolution by any means possible. Yours is an intellectually corrupt project.
The post above is typical - you imply that because people are working to develop (ie expand, modify and synthesise new data from palaeontology and biogeography and the understanding of other disciplines such as molecular biology, theoretical biology, embryology and biophysics) into the Theory, then Darwin’s Theory is falsified. But that is simply not true, any more than his theory was falsified by the synthesis with genetics in the 1930s, or Newton’s classical mechanics is falsified by GR or SR.
You present a false dilemma - your claims are that either Darwin’s theory is right in all aspects and complete, or that it is totally falsified and worthless. This fallacious logic is the cheap rhetoric of someone who is quite incapable of making a single scientific argument.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
Apparently, when I said “Darwin’s theory” above that confused you. I was talking about a theory. Clearly, the fact that I pointed out that the theory conflicts with observations in nature (and has since the time of Darwin) troubles you so much that you have to attack me on an irrelevant point.
The scientists who claim that evolutionary theory “has no flaws” are descended from those who claimed the same thing 100 years ago before numerous refutations and attempts at corrections were made.
You constantly use the term “the theory” as if there is merely one.
I think we saw you doing that in the very first sentence you posted.
Again, you were confused by my use of the term “Darwin’s theory” above. I’m not sure how to explain it to you. But yes, you’re right about one thing – I am interested in attacking the theory because people like you portray it as beyond criticism while covering-up the many challenges and flaws in the theory as I already showed.
Well, what would we expect from a person who is “totally lacking all credibility”. A number of people here on CAF like and support what I’ve said though, as I’ve found from private communications. So, I disagree that I am not able to communicate and understand.
Interesting choice of words. I merely pointed out that the act of “developing” the theory proves that it is inadequate to explain nature. Do you think evolutionary theory “has no flaws” as another evolutionist has claimed here also? Or do you think it does have flaws? It’s an easy question. Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to actually point out some of the flaws, if you even answered in the affirmative. By the way, I mentioned the term “evolutionary theory” here again. You might have missed that.
In what aspects is it not right?
It may have more worth than the scientists who claim that it does not have “any flaws” or that there are “no conflicts between the theory of evolution and what is observed in nature” as both Rossum and Orogeny have stated.
But again, I detect a propagandist at work. Now, suddenly, you hint that Darwin’s theory might not be “right in all aspects”. One would expect an objective scientist to have no problem admitting this and going farther, openly pointing out the flaws and “not rightness” with the theory without any fear whatsoever.
In none of the dozens of posts that I have read from you on CAF have you ever said once that there was one thing “not right” about Darwin’s theory.
The logic is solid. You’re on record as saying that evolutionary theory is “not right in all aspects”.
Let’s see the evidence and science behind that claim. We should be sure that if anyone, you would have a very comprehensive list of all the “aspects” in which evolutionary theory is “not right”.
R
reggieM
Guest
I think you would spend your time more profitably by responding to the posts from Teflon93 and Orogeny that you said you would get back to.
I can’t imagine that your repeated attacks against me are very interesting to anyone else here. I think you’re just wasting your time with that kind of post.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
##** I’m no scientist
but the implied argument is ridiculous 
As usual, we have a confusion between two things that are not the same. So:**- God’s activity is not on the same “level” as that of created things; including a process such as evolution.
**An analogy: two trains will collide if they are running on the same track towards destinations in opposite directions. **
**The two “levels” are different “worlds” - they are connected not directly, but indirectly, by being in the mind of a person interested in both, who is the link between them: but the two levels are so different in kind that of themselves they cannot meet; so neither will the trains in them: a “real” train cannot collide with a train in a story. **
It is “sort of” a bit like that with God & creation: the world has its life, God has His, which is uninfluenced by its life. It depends on him, but not He on it. He is not contained in this world: He is not going to appear as a character: except indirectly, by being man. God is not an historical character - Jesus is. God is different from **the world - so, it can operate “as though” God did not exist. There is no **“collision” - so the world is safe for science, & for other forms of study. Evolution does not happen to God - it happens to the world He has created. To deny this, would be like suggesting that Herman Melville got a cold from the water in that whaling story of his: why should he ? The water was in his story, not his personal experience; the book is not his diary: the two worlds are not on the same level.
- Status