Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

[Hugh_Farey]

[Me:] On the contrary, there is empirical evidence, both from fossil and live studies.
[You:] The fossil record does not provide empirical evidence for your hypothesis - anymore than “crop circles” provide empirical evidence for aliens.

Once again, you show that you do not understand ‘scientific’, as opposed to ‘creationist’ thinking. Crop-circles existed, and ‘aliens’ was an explanation for them. From an isolated observation, a hypothesis was derived, and by some people assumed to be ‘fact’. This is creationist thinking at its purist. Scientists related the crop-circles (which are indeed empirical evidence) to lots of other observations of physical phenomena, and produced hypotheses that fitted all of them, not just a few. The possibility of aliens (like the possibility of creationism) cannot be utterly eliminated, but the behaviour of cheeky people in the middle of the night fits the observations better.

There are many similarities between belief in alien crop-circles and belief in creationism. The ignoring of any evidence except the single phenomenon itself, the reliance on newspaper reports for accurate information, the distortion of observations to fit the adopted hypothesis - it’s all there.

What connects the fossil record to your “tubular skin mutations” hypothesis is nothing more than speculation.

Yeah, yeah

Besides that, I would bet my bottom dollar that there are no transitional fossils of dinosaurs that demonstrate the gradual development of “tubular skin mutations”.

Reach for your dollar, and look up the evolution of feathers on the internet. Add “amber” to help narrow down your search.

And what are these “live studies” that demonstrate that reptiles can grow feathers? The mind boggles.

Boggle ye not. I didn’t say the live studies ‘demonstrated’ anything (as you well know, you naughty man).
Studies of unusually scaleless reptiles, and reptile and bird embryology, have enabled us to establish a collection of observations concerning feathers, and an explanation which encompasses them. That’s what science is.

[Me:] … [A description of some actual observations] … Models which explain these and other observations in evolutionary terms both fit, and account for, the observations much better than creationist explanations.
[You:] Sounds scientific, but this is really just evo-gibberish.

Translation: I know you’re right, and can’t think of any objection, but I’m still clinging to my creationist security blanket so please go away.

Models … Models? LOL!! Models can be rigged to say anything.

Yup. Models. That’s what science is. But they are not “rigged to say anything”. They are amended to account for new observations. That’s what science is.

When scientists start talking about what they think happened 200 million years ago, I tend to just tune out and fall asleep … zzzzzzzzzzzz

Of course. That’s why you get everything wrong.

 

[ratio1]

showing subservience

That’s what I don’t understand. Wouldn’t there be selective pressures that those who don’t show such subservience will dominate?
Or are you saying showing subservience is actually an evolutionary advantage?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

That’s what I don’t understand. Wouldn’t there be selective pressures that those who don’t show such subservience will dominate?
Or are you saying showing subservience is actually an evolutionary advantage?

In hominoid societies, its not so much dominance or submission that conveys an advantage, but recognising the group dynamic and responding to it. A bossy youngster may be killed or driven out, unless he bides his time until he knows that he has a good chance of becoming alpha male, and only then challenging for dominance. Less powerful members of the group can obtain advantage by stealth or sycophancy. However, in recognising a power that cannot be challenged, such as the weather, then attempts at dominance are futile, and only submission will lead to a fulfilled life, and consequent reproductive success. In the presence of divine omnipotence, acquiescence to his rules (both the laws of nature and the Ten Commandments) is likely to lead to greater reproductive success than attempting to overthrow them.

 

[benjamin1973]

You seem to be deliberately refusing to get this point.

Survival advantages aren’t something a species waits around for. They are in the animal during its life, affect its chance to survive and to reproduce, and get passed on.

It’s not like some deer were standing around thinking, “Gee, I wish I could get to those tall leaves, but I’ll have to wait 10 million years to become a giraffe.”

 

[benjamin1973]

I never have.

 

[benjamin1973]

I think I explained it pretty clearly. Evolution passes on advantageous genes. Genes which will lead to an animal being overstrained will not be advantageous.

 

[benjamin1973]

Selective pressures are just environmental features that make this or that trait advantageous or disadvantageous.

But there is still room for variety, since different traits, even opposing ones, can be advantageous. For example, flying is advantageous. But that doesn’t mean all animals need to be able to fly to thrive.

 

[PetraG]

That’s not fair - the theory of evolution won’t work if we stick to reality and facts.

It constantly amazes me how many non-scientists really believe that all the scientists are either in some kind of worldwide collusion to mislead them, don’t have the common sense of a two-day-old bunny, or else are the kind who simply lap up they are told without questioning it.

There is no world-wide conspiracy. Scientists are not all stupid and they do not just automatically believe what they are told. Is there any social pressure to stick to Darwinism as the best explanation of the facts? Oh, you bet there is. Would someone who came up with a better explanation be resisted? Yes. Would they take their place among the most preeminent scientists in history if their explanation really was better? Oh, you bet they would.

There are a lot of data that have been collected concerning which animals existed at which times in history, which ones did not, and what that has to do with why today’s animals have the physical features and DNA they have. Thinking built on Darwin’s proposals are, so far, the best explanation, even though the data are by no means complete.

When any of you who are just too smart to fall for Darwinism have a better explanation, by all means make your proposals. The same goes for you who are too smart to believe the climate of the earth could possibly be changing. When you have a better explanation for the data that doesn’t invoke wholesale deception by the entire scientific community for some reason having to do with raising taxes or Heaven knows what their reason would be for totally selling out their integrity and making themselves into the most remarkably consistent set of co-conspirators in history, by all means offer it.

Until then, Occam’s Razor says you don’t entertain the possibility that any of this could be true because you don’t want that to be the truth. If that is the case, then it could not be more pointless to explain something over and over to someone who is hellbent on misunderstanding it.

 

[edwest211]

That’s impossible. Oh wait…

 

[PetraG]

That is very cool. I’m not sure what your point is?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

It constantly amazes me how many non-scientists really believe that all the scientists are either in some kind of worldwide collusion to mislead them, don’t have the common sense of a two-day-old bunny, or else are the kind who simply lap up they are told without questioning it.

There is no world-wide conspiracy. Scientists are not all stupid and they do not just automatically believe what they are told. Is there any social pressure to stick to Darwinism as the best explanation of the facts? Oh, you bet there is. Would someone who came up with a better explanation be resisted? Yes. Would they take their place among the most preeminent scientists in history if their explanation really was better? Oh, you bet they would.

Don’t be amazed, Petra. Creationists think scientists use their own methodology, by which blind faith, selective observations, worldwide collusion to mislead, lapping up whatever they are told without questioning, and the common sense of a two-day-old bunny are among the more sensible ways they have of proclaiming their ‘truth’.

 

[buffalo]

When the water levels were lower there were no reefs.

 

[buffalo]

Only evolutionist do not throwout results they don’t like, cherry pick data, and lap up what they are told. No bias, no a priori bases, no influence for the academic community or pressure…

Ridiculous…

 

[edwest211]

Wow. Smart meteors. Yes… that uh… something something.

As a student of military history, the odds of surviving a 2,000 pound bomb are better. Almost exactly zero.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Only evolutionist do not throwout results they don’t like, cherry pick data, and lap up what they are told. No bias, no a priori bases, no influence for the academic community or pressure…

Ridiculous…

Any impartial review of this thread, and I dare say the previous four as well, will enable the interested bystander to assess the truth of this statement for themselves.

Did you ever get around to saying how the appearance of elephants, lizards and fish in the fossil strata can be reconciled by them all being created together? No, you didn’t. (“throwout results they don’t like”)

Did you ever get around to quoting a bit more of The Origin of Species than "Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation”? No, you didn’t. (“cherry pick data”)

Did you just accept what you were told about how to interpret the six days without considering how they fitted observations of the natural world? Yes, you did. (“lap up what they are told”)

Now see if you can do that to any of the evolutionists commenting on this thread.

 

[rossum]

As a student of military history, the odds of surviving a 2,000 pound bomb are better. Almost exactly zero.

No. It depends how close you are to the bomb when it explodes. My father and mother both survived every 2,000 pound bomb dropped in WWII.

rossum

 

[Hugh_Farey]

As a student of military history, the odds of surviving a 2,000 pound bomb are better. Almost exactly zero.

About 15% of bombs didn’t go off. Your knowledge of military history is not nearly as good as your knowledge of evolution.

 

[edwest211]

Oh, I understand. The problem is when scientists claim an asteroid wiped out all the dinosaurs. I have seen film of 2,000 pound bombs striking the earth. I am also aware of the Circular Error Probable, and I know a person who survived bombings during World War II. Searchers would not have found this person in one case if they were not able to raise an arm after being covered by debris.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

The problem is when scientists claim an asteroid wiped out all the dinosaurs.

Shocking. They ought to be struck off. Just name one, would you?

 

[buffalo]

Any impartial review of this thread, and I dare say the previous four as well, will enable the interested bystander to assess the truth of this statement for themselves.

Did you ever get around to saying how the appearance of elephants, lizards and fish in the fossil strata can be reconciled by them all being created together? No, you didn’t. (“throwout results they don’t like”)

Did you ever get around to quoting a bit more of The Origin of Species than "Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation”? No, you didn’t. (“cherry pick data”)

Did you just accept what you were told about how to interpret the six days without considering how they fitted observations of the natural world? Yes, you did. (“lap up what they are told”)

Now see if you can do that to any of the evolutionists commenting on this thread.

Asked and answered. Genesis is very strong.

Once again, the human reasoning of the observations has to be reconciled. As I stated before, give it some time.

I will stand by the constant understanding and teaching of the Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit, (yes, lapped up ) No apologies.

I can do it with the source data, the flawed peer review process, the bias in academia, who funds the research, what happens to researchers who go outside the paradigm, etc…