Best Evidence for Evolution.

PlastikBuddha

New member
Astrophysics theory is currently "in meltdown". Even insiders are saying so.
Not to the point of throwing out the age of the universe. Ideas about the physics of origins are in flux- not such basic ideas as the universe being only 6,000 years old. Way to overstate your case, Bob.
I accept modern geology, but not historical geology which is highly speculative and subject to change (i.e. age of Grand Canyon).
Once again, you can't pick and choose. Modern geology is founded on an old earth. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Your opening paragraph contradicts that: "the majority of people involved in the sciences come to- that the universe is billions of years old and that life has changed over billions of years to the present diversity."

Isn't that a form of the "argument from authority"?
It would be if that were why I believe. I said I looked at the same evidence they did and arrived at the same conclusion. Big difference.
Perhaps when many others begin to see it you will change your mind.
Only if the evidence warrants it.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I said I looked at the same evidence they did and arrived at the same conclusion. Big difference.

Only if the evidence warrants it.

The evidence already warrants it. Better look again. talk.origins naturally doesn't include the logic which destroys their conclusion, because they are by and large all atheists (a few theistic evolutionists).
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
The evidence already warrants it. Better look again. talk.origins naturally doesn't include the logic which destroys their conclusion, because they are by and large all atheists (a few theistic evolutionists).

Rest assured I will continue to do my best to stay abreast of the latest news in the field of biology. If nothing else, we all have you to bring contrary ideas to our attention after all.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rest assured I will continue to do my best to stay abreast of the latest news in the field of biology. If nothing else, we all have you to bring contrary ideas to our attention after all.

Restating this for accuracy, my contrariness is regarding the conclusions not the experiments themselves.

If one keeps certain principles firmly in mind it is not difficult to spot erroneous conclusions.

1) DNA change does not necessarily equate to "evolution" (except for "true believers"),

2) rapid adaptation coupled with experimental repeatability implies a mechanism,

3) Natural Selection cannot "look ahead" so as to select variations which are not immediately beneficial (mechanisms would not arise prior to them being needed),

4) current evolutionary theory is based on neoDarwinism, in which the mechanism is "random mutations plus Natural Selection" operating gradually over eons of
time.

5) any experimental evidence of rapid adaptation to changes in the environment should be considered as a violation of ToE (neoDarwinism), requiring a new theory or at least a major revision of the current theory.

6) many past examples attributed to "evolution", such as rapid change of form due to environmental change have since been shown to be not heritable but instead were a physical response to the developing creatures change in diet (diet change caused beak length and shape to change) and rapidly reverted back almost en masse to prior forms when the climate cycled back (drought to wet).
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Restating this for accuracy, my contrariness is regarding the conclusions not the experiments themselves.

If one keeps certain principles firmly in mind it is not difficult to spot erroneous conclusions.

1) DNA change does not necessarily equate to "evolution" (except for "true believers"),
DNA change+natural selection does.
2) rapid adaptation coupled with experimental repeatability implies a mechanism,
Not necessarily a supernatural one, though.
3) Natural Selection cannot "look ahead" so as to select variations which are not immediately beneficial (mechanisms would not arise prior to them being needed),
It doesn't need to look ahead.
4) current evolutionary theory is based on neoDarwinism, in which the mechanism is "random mutations plus Natural Selection" operating gradually over eons of
time.

5) any experimental evidence of rapid adaptation to changes in the environment should be considered as a violation of ToE (neoDarwinism), requiring a new theory or at least a major revision of the current theory.
No one has implied that our current understanding of evolution is 100% accurate. there is always room for improvement.
6) many past examples attributed to "evolution", such as rapid change of form due to environmental change have since been shown to be not heritable but instead were a physical response to the developing creatures change in diet (diet change caused beak length and shape to change) and rapidly reverted back almost en masse to prior forms when the climate cycled back (drought to wet).

On the other hand, many more have been shown not to be due to these things.
 

macguy

New member
Did you find it yet?

That's what mutations are but evolution is descent with modification. However, even that definition is rather vague... Just take a look at all the news stories, such as the dolphin's extra fin as "evolution". The definition in that regard is rather vague. Even Talk.Origins admits:

The word "evolution" is an unfortunate instance of that ambiguity
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
That's what mutations are but evolution is descent with modification. However, even that definition is rather vague... Just take a look at all the news stories, such as the dolphin's extra fin as "evolution". The definition in that regard is rather vague. Even Talk.Origins admits:

The ambiguity results from the use of the word in a way that is not consistent with ToE- i.e. the "evolution" star systems, or the "evolution" of the automobile. Science doesn't trademark it's terminology. This is pretty much the same thing that happens when folks misunderstand the concept of a theory as being just an educated guess.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Mendel's work with pea plants caused a crisis in evolutionary theory

Bob is just making it up as he goes along. In fact, Mendel's work caused no stir at all. No one showed much interest in it, and if it wasn't for the kindness of the head of the Austrian Society, we'd never have heard of him. The article was placed in the journal, but not read, until Hugo DeVries rediscovered Mendel decades later.

And then, rather than causing a crisis, Mendel's work cleared up a problem Darwin was never able to resolve. Critics asked how a new variation could be established when (if inheritance was like mixing two colors of paint, as everyone had assumed) such a new variation would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.

Mendel explained how Darwinian evolution was possible. It was particulate, caused by discrete genes, which can thereby reappear later, and which can spread through a population.

Instead of being a crisis in evolutionary theory, Mendel's findings resolved an important problem.

Nice try, bob.

because it seemed to show that recombination led to variational limits,

Neither Mendel nor any person citing his work came to that conclusion. Another bob fantasy.

something that was not consistent with the unlimited variation ideas of Darwin.

Darwin never stated that variation of living things was unlimited. In fact, he discusses some limitations of variation. Bob made that up, too.

This crisis was "solved" by the introduction of the neoDarwinism idea (random mutation plus natural selection) which assumed that random mutations to DNA could extend the limits of sexual recombination that Mendel had previously established (for pea plants).

That's been directly observed. Would you like some examples, bob?
 
e=mc2 einstein? i think not. The first line in the bible! The first thing that ever happened was light . So i say - light = time = god. (god = infinite energy) hence god is the only possible time traveler.:think:
 

Hank

New member
e=mc2 einstein? i think not. The first line in the bible! The first thing that ever happened was light . So i say - light = time = god. (god = infinite energy) hence god is the only possible time traveler.:think:

You may not be aware of this but e=mc2 has nothing to do with time travel.

Just out of curiosity, how do you conclude that if god = infinite energy, that resutls in god being the only time traveler?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Bob is just making it up as he goes along. In fact, Mendel's work caused no stir at all. No one showed much interest in it, and if it wasn't for the kindness of the head of the Austrian Society, we'd never have heard of him. The article was placed in the journal, but not read, until Hugo DeVries rediscovered Mendel decades later.

And then, rather than causing a crisis, Mendel's work cleared up a problem Darwin was never able to resolve. Critics asked how a new variation could be established when (if inheritance was like mixing two colors of paint, as everyone had assumed) such a new variation would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white.
Mendel explained how Darwinian evolution was possible. It was particulate, caused by discrete genes, which can thereby reappear later, and which can spread through a population.
Instead of being a crisis in evolutionary theory, Mendel's findings resolved an important problem.
Nice try, bob.
Neither Mendel nor any person citing his work came to that conclusion. Another bob fantasy.
Darwin never stated that variation of living things was unlimited. In fact, he discusses some limitations of variation. Bob made that up, too.
That's been directly observed. Would you like some examples, bob?

From Wikipedia, History of Evolutionary thought.

Expanding Darwin's theory: the Mendelian-biometrician debates
While the scientific community generally accepted that evolution had occurred, many disagreed that it had happened under the conditions or mechanisms provided by Darwin. In the years immediately following Darwin's death, evolutionary thought fractured into a number of interpretations, neo-Darwinism, neo-Larmarckism, orthogenesis, Mendelism, the biometric approach, and mutation theory. Eventually this boiled down to a debate between two camps. The Mendelians, advocating discrete variation, were led by William Bateson (who coined the word genetics) and Hugo de Vries (who coined the word mutation). Their opponents were the biometricians, advocating continuous variation; their leaders Karl Pearson and Walter Frank Raphael Weldon, following in the tradition of Francis Galton.

An important issue in the debate between the Mendelians and the biometricians was the nature of variation in species. Darwin and Wallace believed that small variations were more important than large ones, since small variations hewed closely to an already-proven model. The biometricians agreed with this position, while the Mendelians insisted that discontinuous species were unlikely to arise from a continuous process of change. While the immediate issue of speciation was resolved in large part by the clear definition of a species as a reproductively isolated population, the rate of evolution would arise again as a point of contention in the late 20th century with the proposal of punctuated equilibrium. Most other questions resolving variation were resolved with the recognition that the size of a genotypic change did not always correspond with the size of the resulting phenotypic change.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
From Wikipedia, History of Evolutionary thought.

Expanding Darwin's theory: the Mendelian-biometrician debates
While the scientific community generally accepted that evolution had occurred, many disagreed that it had happened under the conditions or mechanisms provided by Darwin. In the years immediately following Darwin's death, evolutionary thought fractured into a number of interpretations, neo-Darwinism, neo-Larmarckism, orthogenesis, Mendelism, the biometric approach, and mutation theory. Eventually this boiled down to a debate between two camps. The Mendelians, advocating discrete variation, were led by William Bateson (who coined the word genetics) and Hugo de Vries (who coined the word mutation). Their opponents were the biometricians, advocating continuous variation; their leaders Karl Pearson and Walter Frank Raphael Weldon, following in the tradition of Francis Galton.

An important issue in the debate between the Mendelians and the biometricians was the nature of variation in species. Darwin and Wallace believed that small variations were more important than large ones, since small variations hewed closely to an already-proven model. The biometricians agreed with this position, while the Mendelians insisted that discontinuous species were unlikely to arise from a continuous process of change. While the immediate issue of speciation was resolved in large part by the clear definition of a species as a reproductively isolated population, the rate of evolution would arise again as a point of contention in the late 20th century with the proposal of punctuated equilibrium. Most other questions resolving variation were resolved with the recognition that the size of a genotypic change did not always correspond with the size of the resulting phenotypic change.
...Then I guess footballs don't have feathers.
 

Skeptic

New member
The evidence already warrants it. Better look again. talk.origins naturally doesn't include the logic which destroys their conclusion,
:rotfl: ... As if you have presented such conclusion-destroying logic!

You're pretty funny sometimes, Bob!

...because they are by and large all atheists (a few theistic evolutionists).
That's right, one must first become a theist, in order to understand your alleged conclusion-destroying logic.

Here's your logic:

Skeptic: "I'll believe it when I see it."

Theist: "I'll see it when I believe it."

:rotfl:
 

Hank

New member
Which it is. Newton said that a body in motion tends to remain in motion.
When taken in context, immovable is not the same as doesn't move. It simply means that we can not change its motion.

Bob you didn’t answer several of my questions so I’m going to take another stab at it.

Are you seriously saying that the earth is not changing it’s motion? If so how do you explain it’s slowing down in it’s rotation speed as well as being pulled in different directions by the sun, planets, and every other object in our solar system.

In the creation story, is the snake talking in the garden, figurative or actual?
In the creation story, is the flaming sword figurative or actual

You avoided answering the question Bob. If the earth is 6000 years old and the light from the explosion came from an object that is more than 6000 light years away, then according to your “evidence”, it must have been created and then immediately destroyed.

Why was the Catholic Church right when they selected the books which are considered the word of God and not now?
 

Hank

New member
Actually the particles were not moving at all! It was only the coordinates that were expanding.

Actually the particles were moving, but space was expanding at a rapid rate.

But the Big Bang proponents not only also believe that the expansion stopped abruptly (relatively speaking), but they also believe there are zillions of parallel universes being constantly created out of the "quantum foam".

Do you have a problem with parallel universes?

Big Bang proponents do not believe that. It’s just one possibility that could be happening based on the mathematical model.

Why do you believe them? Apparently this "foam"must be their god.

Oh, I know. They have equations that you don't understand but they must be correct since they are scientists.

Could it be the same reason you believe you doctor when he says you need an operation? Or the same reason you believe an engineer knows enough about the science of materials to adequately design a building that will support you on the 90th floor? Of course not. Everyone knows there is a conspiracy of scientist in this field that are trying to fool everyone and Bob is our savior who can explain how they are wrong.

But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.
 

noguru

Well-known member
But since you are all knowledgeable about cosmology, tell us what model YOU use to explain why this expansion would persist to the size of the universe today? You’ve got a lot of experimental evidence to overcome but it would be a Nobel Prize for you.

Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious? But there is no Nobel Prize awarded to explanations that replace mathematical formulas with "God did it".
 

Hank

New member
Bob is happy with the young earth creationist model. Isn't that obvious?

I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.
 

noguru

Well-known member
I'm not so sure noguru. I haven't seen any of the creation "scientists" taking up this "stretching" of the universe to the present size in 7 days or less. It violates so much scientific evidence I don't think even the creationist want that monkey on their backs.

Well that is why he wants you to throw out all these mathematical formulas that frame the evidence into the naturalistic model.
 
Top