Explaining Darwinism to an Accountant

[The_Barbarian]

The diagram is interesting but it doesn’t explain polystrate fossilized trees, some going into coal seams.

There are some forming in the reservoir near my house. Not all sediment takes millions of years to form. Some happens in decades.

The Okapi was once thought to be an extinct relative of the horse

I can’t imagine any biologist dumb enough to think the Okapi is a close relative of horses. Okapis, like their close relatives the giraffes, are artiodactyls, not particularly close to perissodactyls like horses.

You have a source for that?

since only bones of it had been found, then the Okapi is found, alive.

Wrong. No bones. They had some native reports of a mule-like animal, but no bones. If they had those, there would have been no question.

Of course, there are quite a few transitional giraffe species in the fossil record. Only two survived the recent extinctions; giraffes with a number of subspecies, and Okapis.

 

[edwest2]

I’m referring to Sir Harry Johnston who was told about the animal by natives. You appear to be right about the bones, but again, based on descriptions, it was first thought to be related to the horse.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’m referring to Sir Harry Johnston who was told about the animal by natives. You appear to be right about the bones, but again, based on descriptions, it was first thought to be related to the horse.

It does look vaguely mulish, except for the long neck, until you look at the details. The hooves immediately rule out equine relatives.

Probably, the stripes were a misleading clue. Stripes are primitive in all lines of horses. As Darwin observed, they are occasionally seen as vestigial patterns in modern E. caballus.

 

[Camron]

It’s not a valid analogy. Additionally, a baby doesn’t grow through the process of mutations and natural selection either.

But it is a valid analogy for how cells can rapidly accumulate in an ordered progression over a very short period of time, which is what the original answer was directed toward.

And, yes, it is highly reasonable that the same kind of rapid accumulation of ordered structures could indeed be extended over geological time scales when copied and transferred across various species via evolutionary processes. It’s actually quite unreasonable to say this is absolutely impossible given the original analogy.

There’s a lot of deception going on. Dawkins’ bluff with the Weasel program is one of the worst I’ve seen. Amazingly, a large number of evolutionists think that he actually proved something with that idea. He is clearly aiming his program at a target and manipulating the results to reach the “goal”.

Yes, and ironically his example seems to be demonstrating that intelligence is responsible for evolution’s direction, that evolution is purpose driven via the goal that the intelligent agent (name removed by moderator)uts into the system. This is actually an example of “guided evolution” by the way, something which you’ve persistently claimed to not understand, something which you’ve persistently claimed was a new innovation on my part.

You said before…

My question is not with regards to the nature of miracles but with regards to you novel ideas about creation, nature and evolution.

You also said…

Again, that is a novel concept. It cannot be found in any scientific or theological literature. It’s your own private theory.

And you also said this…

Your theory of evolution cannot be found in scientific or theological writings – and yet you give the pretense of defending mainstream evolutionary theory.

Again, your idea is far from what is called “the theory of evolution”.

I cannot understand what you mean by the term, given your theory posted previously.

Yes, I do think there’s a lot of deception going on Reggie. But I’m not engaged in any of it. :nope:

 

[reggieM]

Would this be considered as the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy

Yes, that’s a very good description of it.

 

[Namesake]

Yes, that’s a very good description of it.

No it is not. Individual scientists can be liars, cheats, thieves, etc. But eventually science sorts it out because science is ultimately judged relative to the truth about the natural world. Science looks for absolute truth and fakers are eventually found out because the truth of nature is discovered. Maybe more slowly than some would like, but the mainstream of science continues to search for the truth about the universe and eventually the truth is found.

 

[reggieM]

No it is not. Individual scientists can be liars, cheats, thieves, etc. But eventually science sorts it out because science is ultimately judged relative to the truth about the natural world.

Well, I would like to see the hard proof that science always “sorts it out”. This assumes that science will always be correct. As I see it, science is judged by human beings, and human beings can be very wrong for a very long time – and they can be wrong forever.

Science looks for absolute truth and fakers are eventually found out because the truth of nature is discovered. Maybe more slowly than some would like, but the mainstream of science continues to search for the truth about the universe and eventually the truth is found.

This is a philosophical assumption and an act of trust in the scientific community. You may be right with regards to the capability of human intelligence (that it will find the good and the true), but it’s not in the nature of science to always find the truth. Scientists can be deceived just like anyone can be. They can also be motivated by political, social or religious (in our era, that is anti-religious) agendas.

 

[Namesake]

Well, I would like to see the hard proof that science always “sorts it out”. This assumes that science will always be correct. As I see it, science is judged by human beings, and human beings can be very wrong for a very long time – and they can be wrong forever.

This is a philosophical assumption and an act of trust in the scientific community. You may be right with regards to the capability of human intelligence (that it will find the good and the true), but it’s not in the nature of science to always find the truth. Scientists can be deceived just like anyone can be. They can also be motivated by political, social or religious (in our era, that is anti-religious) agendas.

I carefully prefaced my remarks by stating that individual scientists can be rogues. Nevertheless, science as a construct remains dedicated to discovering absolute truth. The goal of most eager to publish, especially young scientists, is to discover errors in accepted theories about the natural world and upset the status quo. Very few scientists are satisfied with conducting research just to further establish accepted science.

Scientists are usually motivated by the possibility of new information. That means that when bad science is promoted there is an opportunity for refutation and there are a whole lot of scientists ready, willing, and able to rip it to shreds. Science research is a very blood thirsty business and that is a good thing for the most part because it keeps things focused on the truth of the natural world. Nature is always the final arbiter and science is all about discovering what nature actually is all about.

 

[reggieM]

I carefully prefaced my remarks by stating that individual scientists can be rogues.

Yes, you did – I was just pointing out that where individuals can be rogues, entire communities (as in the scientific community) can be the same. But when speaking about “science” there are many branches. I would agree with you with regards to hard-science like mathematics or logic. Politics or bias do not interfere here. Either the mathematical formula works or it doesn’t. The same is not true with soft-sciences like evolutionary theory or psychology. These can be politically motivated, or motivated by other things like desire for money and fame.

Nevertheless, science as a construct remains dedicated to discovering absolute truth. The goal of most eager to publish, especially young scientists, is to discover errors in accepted theories about the natural world and upset the status quo.

That might be true, although it’s hard to really say for sure beyond a gut feeling or by what scientists might say. But I wouldn’t overlook the motivation that scientists have for fame and celebrity status and the money that comes with it. Richard Dawkins is making millions by writing books that support the evolutionary mainstream and which offer nothing new in those theories. He does not appear to want (or need) to overturn the majority view. I think many others are the same.

Why do so many scientists reject belief in God? A survey by Nature Magazine shows that about 70% of the scientific community is atheistic. This number is so disproportionate to that of the general public that we have to question the nature of this particular community. Can we generalize about them without noting this remarkable feature?

Science research is a very blood thirsty business and that is a good thing for the most part because it keeps things focused on the truth of the natural world. Nature is always the final arbiter and science is all about discovering what nature actually is all about.

Yes, this is true among some scientific endeavors – namely, those that work by lab experiments. That’s hard science where you can produce evidence by testing. Evolutionary theory does not work that way. It’s a very subjective science. For that reason, nature is not the arbiter since evolutionists are not observing nature when creating evolutionary theories. They’re speculating about history and offering “what might have happened”.

 

[Namesake]

Yes, this is true among some scientific endeavors – namely, those that work by lab experiments. That’s hard science where you can produce evidence by testing. Evolutionary theory does not work that way. It’s a very subjective science. For that reason, nature is not the arbiter since evolutionists are not observing nature when creating evolutionary theories. They’re speculating about history and offering “what might have happened”.

You are in error about evolution theory being subjective. Seriously, you really are. Evolution research is pretty hard science because most of it is based on geology, chemistry, paleontology, astronomy, histology, embryology, comparative anatomy, cell biology, immunology, evolutionary biology, botany, etc. It’s not as hard as mathematics but it’s not as soft as psychology ( I can speak as an expert because I have degrees in psychology and zoology).

Evolution science is totally focused on the natural world and how it works from the point of view of how stuff happened. It is only interested in the absolute truth. That isn’t to say that every evolutionary scientist is interested in the truth, just like not every religious person is interested in the truth.

 

[redneck22]

reggieM says-There’s a lot of deception going on. Dawkins’ bluff with the Weasel program is one of the worst I’ve seen. Amazingly, a large number of evolutionists think that he actually proved something with that idea. He is clearly aiming his program at a target and manipulating the results to reach the “goal”.

redneck22 says-Would this be considered as the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy

reggieM says “Yes, that’s a very good description of it.”

No it is not. Individual scientists can be liars, cheats, thieves, etc. But eventually science sorts it out because science is ultimately judged relative to the truth about the natural world. Science looks for absolute truth and fakers are eventually found out because the truth of nature is discovered. Maybe more slowly than some would like, but the mainstream of science continues to search for the truth about the universe and eventually the truth is found.

the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy

Namesake can you please elaborate as to why it’s not?

 

[Namesake]

the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy

Namesake can you please elaborate as to why it’s not?

I thought that I did explain that.

 

[redneck22]

I thought that I did explain that.

no

 

[reggieM]

You are in error about evolution theory being subjective. Seriously, you really are.

Well, that’s not something that science itself can prove either. I respect your opinion, but in this case I disagree. Evolutionary theory is very subjective. We can look at the number of changes, reversals, denials, contradictions, ambiguities and confusion that continues to be part of the theory. When I hear evolutionists claim that there are “no weaknesses” in the theory (with beligerent challenges against anyone who says that there are weaknesses), then I know there is bias at work at the core of this science. I can see the emotional hostility that criticisms of evolution face. Supposedly objective and neutral searchers of truth (evolutionists) become completely unhinged when they encounter criticisms of their ideas.

It’s not as hard as mathematics but it’s not as soft as psychology ( I can speak as an expert because I have degrees in psychology and zoology).

Personally, I think its much softer than psychology. Actually, I wouldn’t call evolutionary theory a science at all. It’s a historical conjecture at best. Much of what I’ve see from it is story-telling. Some refer to Darwinian Fairytales - with good reason in my opinion. People don’t say mathematics are fairytales – for good reason.

Evolution science is totally focused on the natural world and how it works from the point of view of how stuff happened. It is only interested in the absolute truth. That isn’t to say that every evolutionary scientist is interested in the truth, just like not every religious person is interested in the truth.

Personally, I think that Darwin was pushing his own philosophical agenda and was not interested in the truth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

the Texas Sharphooter Fallacy

Namesake can you please elaborate as to why it’s not?

It’s not, because evolutionary theory makes testable predictions that have been later verified by evidence. Some examples:

• whales with functional legs
• Genetic data showing common descent
• Observed speciation
• Mathematical verification of natural selection in nature
• Increasing number of predicted transitionals but no unpredicted transitionals
• Discovery of the mechanism for mutation

These are the opposite of finding an arrow in a tree and drawing a bulls-eye around it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Well, that’s not something that science itself can prove either. I respect your opinion, but in this case I disagree. Evolutionary theory is very subjective.

It has to be testable, if it’s a science. And as you see below, it is. There are many other ways it can be objectively tested, and has been. Would you like to learn about some others?

We can look at the number of changes, reversals, denials, contradictions, ambiguities and confusion that continues to be part of the theory.

That is true of all theories. For example, consider atomic theory and the many changes, reversals, contradictions, ambiguities and confusions in that. And we aren’t yet done. Any science with nothing left to clear up, that’s a dead science.

When I hear evolutionists claim that there are “no weaknesses” in the theory (with beligerent challenges against anyone who says that there are weaknesses),

There are entire journals dedicated to problems in evolutionary theory, as there are for all sciences. They just aren’t what you think they are.

Supposedly objective and neutral searchers of truth (evolutionists) become completely unhinged when they encounter criticisms of their ideas.

You seem kinda upset that they don’t agree with you. But hyperbole isn’t the answer.

Personally, I think its much softer than psychology.

Here’s an opinion from a real scientist, Nobel-laureate physicist Irwin Schroedinger (in What is Life?:

“Biology is a much harder science than physics.”

He’s right.

Actually, I wouldn’t call evolutionary theory a science at all. It’s a historical conjecture at best.

Tell you what. Read Hastings Population Biology or Ayala’s
Population and Evolutionary Genetics and then come back and tell us what each chapter says. Then you’ll actually have some knowledge of the subject to rely on, not just fairytales other creationists told you.

Feelings and beliefs aren’t of much use in science, precisely because it is so objective. Set aside your feelings about Darwin and go see for yourself.

 

[edwest2]

No it is not. Individual scientists can be liars, cheats, thieves, etc. But eventually science sorts it out because science is ultimately judged relative to the truth about the natural world. Science looks for absolute truth and fakers are eventually found out because the truth of nature is discovered. Maybe more slowly than some would like, but the mainstream of science continues to search for the truth about the universe and eventually the truth is found.

It would be nice if science was a benign enterprise but it is not. Most scientists are working under the supervision or control of the Military-Industrial Complex first identified by outgoing President Eisenhower in 1961. I won’t quote his speech, but his primary point was this: prior to World War II, this country could produce weapons but now, it’s become institutionalized.

Ten years earlier, in 1951, the Invention Secrecy Act was passed. No longer was it possible for some tinker to create something and patent it, now the Government, using “national security” as a justification, could classify any invention as a secret.

In biology, the goal is producing product and profits. There is also the military defense dimension. The average person does not have the knowledge or training or money to set up their own research lab. So where does the money come from? Government and industry, primarily pharmacutical companies and other investors.

Finally, there are scientific associations that are a double-edged sword. They serve to make sure good science is done and that time, money and effort is not wasted on bad. But, intentially or not, they can also serve as the gatekeepers against new ideas they do not like and as censors. These groups are not above being influenced by outside forces because they consist of human beings.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

In the area of biotechnology, money is put in and people wait, but as all scientists know, new discoveries do not arrive on a schedule. Hype is created to help convince the public and potential investors, that this new development or discovery could lead to the “next big [money making] thing.”

The fact is, in the lab, there is also an institutional bias. This bias, especially recently, has been seen more and more outside the lab. It is atheism and a desire to give the appearance that science is neutral about it. There are too many loud voices who are scientists who prove that there is no truth to the idea of neutrality. Atheism’s been getting a lot of press lately.

I think it would be worth looking to science and the associations that oversee it, as being a lot more like the government of the United States which is filled with lobbyists.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Why do so many scientists reject belief in God? A survey by Nature Magazine shows that about 70% of the scientific community is atheistic.

Perhaps because a profession that a) demands evidence in order to support one’s convictions, and b) that leads to a deep understanding that the world appears just as it would in the absence of any tampering by intelligent supernatural agents leads people away from magical thinking and from believing in said magical supernatural agents.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

There is no magical thinking involved when a man who is also God is raised from the dead. And there is no magical thinking when documented miracles occur. What does also occur is the unwillingness of people like Christopher Hitchens (author of God Is Not Great) who said he would be inclined to deny the evidence of his own eyes if he witnessed a miracle.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Evolutionary theory is very subjective.

That shows you know very, very little about evolutionary biology. Very little. The Theory of Evolution is supported by the confluence of a vast quantity of objective evidence from a wide range of disciplines. There isn’t the remotest prospect of any respectable alternative explanation for the evidence we find in palaeontology, molecular biology, developmental biology, cladistics, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology - the evidence is objective and extremely robust and you are either deliberately pretending that that evidence doesn’t exist to make a point or you are simply too ignorant about the science to take a balanced view.

When I hear evolutionists claim that there are “no weaknesses” in the theory (with beligerent challenges against anyone who says that there are weaknesses), then I know there is bias at work at the core of this science. I can see the emotional hostility that criticisms of evolution face. Supposedly objective and neutral searchers of truth (evolutionists) become completely unhinged when they encounter criticisms of their ideas.

And I think you have a point here - and you know why that is? Because amongst all the well established scientific theories, the fact and theory of evolution is uniquely subject to attack and criticism by the mendacious, the ill-informed, and the religiously motivated. No other branch of science has to bear this absurd burden of religious disapproval. No other science is subject to the sort of legal and educational interference that besets evolutionary biology. And it is not because there is doubt about it, or because it is, in your words, a soft science. People who have actually taken the trouble to study the subject in depth (and that definitely excludes you, Reggie), and who are free from an a priori religious view, know that the evidence for the fact of common descent is multi-faceted and overwhelming. This religiously motivated creationism and IDism is frustrating to scientists, and it is an attack on science both as a profession and an efficacious way to learn about the world, and so we shouldn’t be surprised that scientists react as you have observed. When people say things like “it’s only a theory” or “there aren’t any transitionals” or “if we descended from apes, why are there apes today?” or other such idiocies, is it any wonder that people who actually know what they are talking about react as they do? On the other hand, where anyone has a rational learned criticism of any aspect of evolutionary biology based on evidence, particularly if they propose a sensible hypothesis that fits the evidence, then they tend to get a different and politer reaction.

Personally, I think its much softer than psychology. Actually, I wouldn’t call evolutionary theory a science at all.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as you are entitled to a belief that the moon is made of green cheese, but it is, like the belief about green cheese, neither warranted nor shared by the vast majority of people who have actually taken the trouble to learn about the subject.

Personally, I think that Darwin was pushing his own philosophical agenda and was not interested in the truth.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you really think that, then you know very little about the man, about his life, his interests, his fears and his doubts. I know that it suits your case to say what you have said, but anyone who has read a biography of Darwin, or his correspondence, or even the Origin will know differently.

Alec
evolutionpages.com