Thunderfoot > Ben Stein

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

I don't know what you mean by vertical evolution, but google "speciation", "darwin finches", and "biogeography"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS

in a godless afterlifeless cosmos, you die and that's it, and the neutrons eventually burn out, and so what? and what's the justification of law and morality? if there is no purpose in the end analysis, what is the point of behaving in any particular way?

You're right - there is no greater reason to do (or not do something). If anything, I've found that realization more empowering. I do not lead a good life because some deity is checking up on me, in fact there is no good reason for me to live the life I do besides the fact that it makes me happy. That is so much more empowering than believing you'll be punished for not doing x, y, or z.

Morality is nothing more than a side-effect of of evolution. Groups of individuals who are obedient to laws such as no stealing or murdering are more likely to genetically survive than a bunch of thieves.

I, however, as an atheist have nothing to fear in the afterlife, which is why I murder, pillage, rape and troll.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

In a nutshell, from our observations of rapidly reproducing organisms, we know how genes propagate through time, distributing and changing along the way. When we look at the genetic make-up of todays animals, it fits what we would expect to see if all of those animals were related in a nested hierarchy, or "tree of life," as it were. There are threads of commonality in the genetic code that very accurately match the same kind of "tree of life" that could be made based on outside physical appearances in the first place.

 

[GeneValgene]

just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you are stupid. ben stein is still a pretty smart guy (i love reading his op eds) - doesn't mean you are 100% right all the time, right? hey, even stephen hawking lost some bets too...

you have guys like dr. francis collins, who is head of the human genome project, who are incredibly brilliant, but still believe in God. by the way, he rejects intelligent design as well. you can read his bio here http://www.genome.gov/10000779

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene
just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you are stupid. ben stein is still a pretty smart guy (i love reading his op eds) - doesn't mean you are 100% right all the time, right? hey, even stephen hawking lost some bets too...

you have guys like dr. francis collins, who is head of the human genome project, who are incredibly brilliant, but still believe in God. by the way, he rejects intelligent design as well. you can read his bio here http://www.genome.gov/10000779

No one is calling Ben Stein stupid for believin God, Zeus, Zoroaster, Apollo, or any other deity. We are calling him stupid for being a creationist and making an irresponsible movie that disputes real science, and will likely get traction with the public.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

[/quote]
You hit the heart of the issue, and something very few proponents of macroevolution like to admit. I accept that genetic variation leading to speciation occurs ("microevolution"). Macroevolution is all based on the assumption that there are no limits to genetic variation, and that living things can evolve over millions of years to the point where they become entirely different altogether (i.e. apelike creatures becoming human beings). This is not observable at all (unless one of you happens to be hundreds of thousands to millions of years old, which I very much doubt).

There is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, despite what some people might say. Microevolution is observable, while macroevolution requires historical (paleontological) evidence. Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution). The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species, and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s). Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong. The whole "tree of life" view of evolution, that we evolved from primordial soup after millions of years and many, many steps, is a scientific sounding story, and one mixed in with a lot of scientific (read: observable and testable) facts, but it is not true. Indeed, the reason why so many people believe macroevolution is true is because there is a lot of truth mixed in, but the foundation (a logically insecure assumption) is shoddy. The entire theory is a deck of cards, and if you take out the assumption that genetic similarity necessarily implies relation, then the whole thing collapses. I'm not calling anyone here stupid (unlike many who would call me so just for disbelieving in an untestable theory - it's not as if I am contesting gravity or the spherical shape of the earth), as I can see how easy it is to be pulled in by such a theory, but I do think you are being misled.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution).

That is simply false, particularly with regard to genetics, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the facts.

The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species

Yes you can. Are you not an example of the species homo sapiens? Aren't your features indicative of the traits of a human being?

and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s).

Do you have a testable hypothesis that explains the data better, Poindexter?

Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong.

Just like those silly round-earthers are "absolutely wrong," eh?

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: GeneValgene
just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you are stupid. ben stein is still a pretty smart guy (i love reading his op eds) - doesn't mean you are 100% right all the time, right? hey, even stephen hawking lost some bets too...

you have guys like dr. francis collins, who is head of the human genome project, who are incredibly brilliant, but still believe in God. by the way, he rejects intelligent design as well. you can read his bio here http://www.genome.gov/10000779

No one is calling Ben Stein stupid for believin God, Zeus, Zoroaster, Apollo, or any other deity. We are calling him stupid for being a creationist and making an irresponsible movie that disputes real science, and will likely get traction with the public.

Creationist != Intelligent design. Not neccesarily, anyway. What Ben Stein seems to be advocating is ID, not neccesarily creationism. He seems to be doing it under the guise that he'd just like to see it get a fair shake in the scientific community. The implications of trying to quantify something so inherently intangible have already been covered in this thread (claiming discrimination when they're not adhering to the scientific method in the first place).

Too often creationism refers to the literal creationists/young earth creationists that espouse a very literal and therefore scientifically incompatible (as well as controversial) viewpoint. There are creationists (see theistic evolutionism) that fully account, allow for and agree with the theory of evolution and natural selection.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Elementary question:

I've been puzzled by the concept of vertical evolution. I know microevolution has been observed and is a fact, but from what can science make the leap to drastic morphological adaption? I know it takes places with small changes over time (Ma's & Ga's), but if it's never been seen (and I don't mean on a microscopic or intra-species level, a.k.a microevolution). Since we can't stick around that long, is the assumption founded in an acceptance of Darwin's theory based on what makes the best sense currently? We either came from a common template or a common ancestor, and science follows the common ancestor theory because that's what has been agreed upon as the best explanation for diversity, right?

You hit the heart of the issue, and something very few proponents of macroevolution like to admit. I accept that genetic variation leading to speciation occurs ("microevolution"). Macroevolution is all based on the assumption that there are no limits to genetic variation, and that living things can evolve over millions of years to the point where they become entirely different altogether (i.e. apelike creatures becoming human beings). This is not observable at all (unless one of you happens to be hundreds of thousands to millions of years old, which I very much doubt).

There is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, despite what some people might say. Microevolution is observable, while macroevolution requires historical (paleontological) evidence. Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution). The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species, and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s). Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong.

[/quote]

There is plenty of sequential evidence considering the low odds of fossils being preserved. You seem to be in disbelief about humans evolving from another ape, but we have an excellent fossil record. Each fossil is a single point on the sequence, and if you can see that over time skulls got bigger in a group that is clearly closely related, it's obvious that they evolved to become more intelligent. That doesn't mean that every prehuman fossil we find is our ancestor-- A lot of them branched out and then those species became extinct. An example would be neanderthals.

Living things can indeed evolve to become completely different species. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution only exists in your mind.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. That all those fossils were randomly placed in geologic strata? Do you think it's coincidence that observation matches biogeographic theory exactly?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
here's why religion doesn't matter, tardos (me included, get over yourselves)

your memories are your consciousness --> are you

your memories (you), are stored in a mass of neurons just behind your lips

if you were to lose your memories, it would be just like you died, or more importantly, just as if you never lived (to yourself)

when you die, that big hunk of gelatinous goo becomes the food source for billions of bacteria, destroying your memories

if you have a "soul" it does not carry your memories, so in the "afterworld" (something else), you would not remember your human life, and may as well have never lived it, making your entire existence here worthless

kind of puts a damper on your basic judeo-christian promises

unfortunately...

in a godless afterlifeless cosmos, you die and that's it, and the neutrons eventually burn out, and so what? and what's the justification of law and morality? if there is no purpose in the end analysis, what is the point of behaving in any particular way?

It makes your stay here much more pleasant?

It's a rather subjective thing, that pleasant you speak of.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution).

That is simply false, particularly with regard to genetics, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the facts.

It is a logical fallacy to say that just because 2 things are similar, they are related (that one gave rise to the other, or that they share a common ancestor). It is possible to manipulate DNA (a common genetic code for living organisms) and to create an organism that is similar in features and genetic composition to another, but was not derived from that other organism. Think of genetic code as being a programming language. Two programs from a programmer can be similar in design, and even be formed of the same building blocks taken from the same "toolkit", and can be separate releases. One of them does not necessarily need to be a modification or update of the other. The same is true of genetics. We can certainly link two organisms and say they are related if we observe that one gives rise to the other, or are even the agents of genetic modification ourselves, but you cannot state as fact that one gives rise to the other if it was not observed. You can make an assumption , and it may even be an accurate one, but you don't know for sure, especially the greater the differences are between the two.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species

Yes you can. Are you not an example of the species homo sapiens? Aren't your features indicative of the traits of a human being?

[/quote]
Let's say I have Down's Syndrome or Leukemia. My traits are certainly not characteristic of the species, but are rather abnormalities. If I had some genetic defect or disease that prevents me from reproducing, and thus being unable to pass on my traits, then my traits will not even be characteristic of a future generation.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s).

Do you have a testable hypothesis that explains the data better, Poindexter?

[/quote]
No, I don't have a testable hypothesis. I'm not even advocating the teaching of ID in schools here, either. I think belief/disbelief in macroevolution is a mater of faith, just as belief/disbelief in ID or creationism is a matter of faith. Which is why I am against teaching either in schools as being science. Microevolution is fine, I have no problem with that, because it is testable and observable.
You don't need to call me "Poindexter", btw. Unless you are calling me a genius? Thank you for the compliment, but it is not necessary

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong.

Just like those silly round-earthers are "absolutely wrong," eh?

[/quote]
What? Did I say anything about the sphericity of the earth? Or is this another insult to generalize about people who disbelieve in some of the aspects of evolutionary theory? Whatever it is you are trying to insinuate, it's not helping your argument at all.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I like telling people that think like you that you didn't come from monkeys. Ultimately some of your closer relatives are mushrooms and slime mold.

Until very recently, our only means of determining lineage was by looking at animals or fossils, and grouping them by similarities in appearance. This method has always had limitations which were obvious to science. As soon as we had an awareness of DNA, we began looking at it. Soon enough we were able to sequence it, and lo and behold, we were able to trace lineage with extreme precision.

When I took science in grade school, the tree of life used in textbooks was still very simple. It was divided into three kingdoms; plants, animals, and everything else. They didn't know much what to do with things like fungi. There were many assumptions which have been since proven quite false, such as the relation between bacteria and fungi. Our new tree of life looks somewhat different these days, but not one piece of DNA evidence has contradicted evolution. New evidence is being gathered all the time which refutes some of the time scales, but nothing has yet contradicted natural selection (Darwin's mechanism for evolution), and certainly nothing has contradicted the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact. The specific mechanisms are being refined every day. About the only thing that has changed radically is our ego-centric view that animals, including humans (lol), make up a significantly tiny proportion of living things, and that all animals derived from fungus. I like telling this to people who have a hard enough time believing we evolved from lower apes.

 

[QED]

I have another similiar, perhaps naive, question: how does macroevolution explain the large gaps between species? Natural selection can explain why giraffes necks get longer and longer-- but among all giraffes there is a nice even distribution of neck lengths-- some short, some long, and some at just about every possible length in between.

If the same processes are at work in macroevolution, how come we do not see smooth gradients of diversity among all living species instead of having very easily identifiable attributes for each species? Why don't we have "super-developed" apes who started their evolution process hundreds of thousands years after the first group of apes who eventually evolved into homo sapiens? Shouldn't we have some animals that are full-blown ape, some that are full-blown homo sapiens, and some that are at every evolutionary stage in between?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution).

That is simply false, particularly with regard to genetics, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the facts.

It is a logical fallacy to say that just because 2 things are similar, they are related (that one gave rise to the other, or that they share a common ancestor). It is possible to manipulate DNA (a common genetic code for living organisms) and to create an organism that is similar in features and genetic composition to another, but was not derived from that other organism. Think of genetic code as being a programming language. Two programs from a programmer can be similar in design, and even be formed of the same building blocks taken from the same "toolkit", and can be separate releases. One of them does not necessarily need to be a modification or update of the other. The same is true of genetics. We can certainly link two organisms and say they are related if we observe that one gives rise to the other, or are even the agents of genetic modification ourselves, but you cannot state as fact that one gives rise to the other if it was not observed. You can make an assumption , and it may even be an accurate one, but you don't know for sure, especially the greater the differences are between the two.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species

Yes you can. Are you not an example of the species homo sapiens? Aren't your features indicative of the traits of a human being?

Let's say I have Down's Syndrome or Leukemia. My traits are certainly not characteristic of the species, but are rather abnormalities. If I had some genetic defect or disease that prevents me from reproducing, and thus being unable to pass on my traits, then my traits will not even be characteristic of a future generation.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s).

Do you have a testable hypothesis that explains the data better, Poindexter?

[/quote]
No, I don't have a testable hypothesis. I'm not even advocating the teaching of ID in schools here, either. I think belief/disbelief in macroevolution is a mater of faith, just as belief/disbelief in ID or creationism is a matter of faith. Which is why I am against teaching either in schools as being science. Microevolution is fine, I have no problem with that, because it is testable and observable.
You don't need to call me "Poindexter", btw. Unless you are calling me a genius? Thank you for the compliment, but it is not necessary

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong.

Just like those silly round-earthers are "absolutely wrong," eh?

What? Did I say anything about the sphericity of the earth? Or is this another insult to generalize about people who disbelieve in some of the aspects of evolutionary theory? Whatever it is you are trying to insinuate, it's not helping your argument at all.[/quote]

I think his point was perfectly clear. Please get some new information, because refusing to agree on evolution IS just as uniformed a position as that of the earth being flat or guns killing people. Quite insulting, no?

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Hahahahahhahahahaha, i just looked at a couple of the specific arguments for ID and i just LOL'd. Give me a break, this is what IDers think is 'rigorous scientific process'? "It's too complex, therefore ID is right!" is not science, i'm sorry to tell your ignorant ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...Irreducible_complexity


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...n#Specified_complexity

It's a bit more complicated than that. You're reading off of Wikipedia (which I'm sure is SO in depth), so I should say you'd be rather ignorant on a lot of the ID argument as well.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I like telling people that think like you that you didn't come from monkeys. Ultimately some of your closer relatives are mushrooms and slime mold.

Until very recently, our only means of determining lineage was by looking at animals or fossils, and grouping them by similarities in appearance. This method has always had limitations which were obvious to science. As soon as we had an awareness of DNA, we began looking at it. Soon enough we were able to sequence it, and lo and behold, we were able to trace lineage with extreme precision.

When I took science in grade school, the tree of life used in textbooks was still very simple. It was divided into three kingdoms; plants, animals, and everything else. They didn't know much what to do with things like fungi. There were many assumptions which have been since proven quite false, such as the relation between bacteria and fungi. Our new tree of life looks somewhat different these days, but not one piece of DNA evidence has contradicted evolution. New evidence is being gathered all the time which refutes some of the time scales, but nothing has yet contradicted natural selection (Darwin's mechanism for evolution), and certainly nothing has contradicted the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact. The specific mechanisms are being refined every day. About the only thing that has changed radically is our ego-centric view that animals, including humans (lol), make up a significantly tiny proportion of living things, and that all animals derived from fungus. I like telling this to people who have a hard enough time believing we evolved from lower apes.

evolution is theory. Just like everything else.

and everybody chooses a side based on faith.

But please, dont let me stop you from looking down at everyone else that doesn't believe what you believe.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution).

That is simply false, particularly with regard to genetics, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the facts.

It is a logical fallacy to say that just because 2 things are similar, they are related (that one gave rise to the other, or that they share a common ancestor). It is possible to manipulate DNA (a common genetic code for living organisms) and to create an organism that is similar in features and genetic composition to another, but was not derived from that other organism. Think of genetic code as being a programming language. Two programs from a programmer can be similar in design, and even be formed of the same building blocks taken from the same "toolkit", and can be separate releases. One of them does not necessarily need to be a modification or update of the other. The same is true of genetics. We can certainly link two organisms and say they are related if we observe that one gives rise to the other, or are even the agents of genetic modification ourselves, but you cannot state as fact that one gives rise to the other if it was not observed. You can make an assumption , and it may even be an accurate one, but you don't know for sure, especially the greater the differences are between the two.

You're ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory makes testable predictions regarding what you call "macroevolution" and these predictions have thus far turned out to be correct. That's all that's required to make it a valid scientific theory.

In your analogy about the programmers, you might see similar designs, but what if you go to the remarks/comments in the code and find that they are completely identical in many respects, including typos, jokes etc? That is, some things you can clearly identify that have nothing to do with function (i.e. not part of any "toolkit" as you put it). What conclusion would you draw from that data?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Genetic and/or morphological similarity does not prove relation, only similarity (which is as much a boon for intelligent design as it is the modern theory of evolution).

That is simply false, particularly with regard to genetics, and demonstrates a woeful ignorance of the facts.

It is a logical fallacy to say that just because 2 things are similar, they are related (that one gave rise to the other, or that they share a common ancestor).

Not in biology.

It is possible to manipulate DNA (a common genetic code for living organisms) and to create an organism that is similar in features and genetic composition to another, but was not derived from that other organism.

So? That doesn't change anything, unless you're trying to assert that all similarities that appear to because of biological heritage are instead manipulated only to perfectly but falsely resemble common ancestry.

Think of genetic code as being a programming language.

I have to ROFL at you trying to explain genetics to me. :laugh:

Two programs from a programmer can be similar in design, and even be formed of the same building blocks taken from the same "toolkit", and can be separate releases. One of them does not necessarily need to be a modification or update of the other. The same is true of genetics.

But we do not observe any such programmer making such programs. We do observe organisms begetting other organisms, however, and we observe the effect that this has on the genetic code through time. What a coincidence that the patterns we observe match exactly what we would expect should all the species be interrelated via common ancestry. :rolleyes;

We can certainly link two organisms and say they are related if we observe that one gives rise to the other, or are even the agents of genetic modification ourselves, but you cannot state as fact that one gives rise to the other if it was not observed.

That's like saying you can't prove paternity unless you actually catch two people doing the horizontal mambo. Ridiculous.

You can make an assumption , and it may even be an accurate one, but you don't know for sure, especially the greater the differences are between the two.

I don't think you understand how science works. Actually -- scratch that. I know you don't understand how science works.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
The problem with trying to use paleontological evidence is that it is very circumstantial. You cannot state the traits of one, two or even more fossils from one time period as being indicative of the entire species

Yes you can. Are you not an example of the species homo sapiens? Aren't your features indicative of the traits of a human being?

Let's say I have Down's Syndrome or Leukemia. My traits are certainly not characteristic of the species, but are rather abnormalities.

Abnormalities are still characteristics, genius.

If I had some genetic defect or disease that prevents me from reproducing, and thus being unable to pass on my traits, then my traits will not even be characteristic of a future generation.

But you will still feature characteristics of your parents, and features shared by other members of your species. Aren't people with leukemia still quadriped chordate mammals. You act as if any old person with an unusual birthmark would be impossible to place taxonomically. Forgive me if I don't take your ideas seriously.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
and you cannot trace those traits back to a fossil or fossils from a previous time period and claim that the earlier fossil(s) is/are ancestor(s) to the later one(s).

Do you have a testable hypothesis that explains the data better, Poindexter?

No, I don't have a testable hypothesis. I'm not even advocating the teaching of ID in schools here, either. I think belief/disbelief in macroevolution is a mater of faith, just as belief/disbelief in ID or creationism is a matter of faith.

And you're wrong.

Which is why I am against teaching either in schools as being science. Microevolution is fine, I have no problem with that, because it is testable and observable.

There is literally no difference. If a person can walk across the room, they can walk out of town. The generation of new taxa has been observed, and that is all that evolution is. Period.

You don't need to call me "Poindexter", btw. Unless you are calling me a genius? Thank you for the compliment, but it is not necessary

:shrug; sometimes sarcasm is lost on the less astute.

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
Try to do so, and you end up making your own "fairy tale" - a fairy tale that sounds nice, fits your theories nicely, but is absolutely wrong.

Just like those silly round-earthers are "absolutely wrong," eh?

What? Did I say anything about the sphericity of the earth?

You might as well have.

Or is this another insult to generalize about people who disbelieve in some of the aspects of evolutionary theory? Whatever it is you are trying to insinuate, it's not helping your argument at all.

Again, forgive me if I don't put much stock in your judgement.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I like telling people that think like you that you didn't come from monkeys. Ultimately some of your closer relatives are mushrooms and slime mold.

Until very recently, our only means of determining lineage was by looking at animals or fossils, and grouping them by similarities in appearance. This method has always had limitations which were obvious to science. As soon as we had an awareness of DNA, we began looking at it. Soon enough we were able to sequence it, and lo and behold, we were able to trace lineage with extreme precision.

When I took science in grade school, the tree of life used in textbooks was still very simple. It was divided into three kingdoms; plants, animals, and everything else. They didn't know much what to do with things like fungi. There were many assumptions which have been since proven quite false, such as the relation between bacteria and fungi. Our new tree of life looks somewhat different these days, but not one piece of DNA evidence has contradicted evolution. New evidence is being gathered all the time which refutes some of the time scales, but nothing has yet contradicted natural selection (Darwin's mechanism for evolution), and certainly nothing has contradicted the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact. The specific mechanisms are being refined every day. About the only thing that has changed radically is our ego-centric view that animals, including humans (lol), make up a significantly tiny proportion of living things, and that all animals derived from fungus. I like telling this to people who have a hard enough time believing we evolved from lower apes.

evolution is theory. Just like everything else.

and everybody chooses a side based on faith.

But please, dont let me stop you from looking down at everyone else that doesn't believe what you believe.

No faith, jacket, or tie required. Evolution is fact not theory in the perverted colloquial sense of the word. Your argument ends on the fallacy of the popular definition of the word 'theory', as opposed to what a theory actually is. A scientific theory, is a framework of facts. A religious 'theory', is really not a theory at all, it is a group of assumptions; god is this, he wills this, because of these this(es), you should behave thusly. It never seems to bother the religious that there is not one provable, measurable, repeatable, or even observable thing or experiment you can test or support religion with, but there are mountains of evidence from observations, tests, and measurements which support evolution. So the religious give you the slippery slope, head in the sand idea that in the absence of blind faith, religion doesn't even mean anything. WOW!

I like... LOVE how no one ever questions their microwave oven or smoke detector which are products of science, but as soon as science refutes religion, uh oh!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
I like telling people that think like you that you didn't come from monkeys. Ultimately some of your closer relatives are mushrooms and slime mold.

Until very recently, our only means of determining lineage was by looking at animals or fossils, and grouping them by similarities in appearance. This method has always had limitations which were obvious to science. As soon as we had an awareness of DNA, we began looking at it. Soon enough we were able to sequence it, and lo and behold, we were able to trace lineage with extreme precision.

When I took science in grade school, the tree of life used in textbooks was still very simple. It was divided into three kingdoms; plants, animals, and everything else. They didn't know much what to do with things like fungi. There were many assumptions which have been since proven quite false, such as the relation between bacteria and fungi. Our new tree of life looks somewhat different these days, but not one piece of DNA evidence has contradicted evolution. New evidence is being gathered all the time which refutes some of the time scales, but nothing has yet contradicted natural selection (Darwin's mechanism for evolution), and certainly nothing has contradicted the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact. The specific mechanisms are being refined every day. About the only thing that has changed radically is our ego-centric view that animals, including humans (lol), make up a significantly tiny proportion of living things, and that all animals derived from fungus. I like telling this to people who have a hard enough time believing we evolved from lower apes.

evolution is theory. Just like everything else.

and everybody chooses a side based on faith.

But please, dont let me stop you from looking down at everyone else that doesn't believe what you believe.

Not the "but evolution is only a theory argument." Theory, in the case of science means proven. It means that, until credible scientific evidence emerges the "theory" is the accepted definition for how and why something happens.

So, you're wrong. Evolution is based on fact. Creationism is based on faith.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

Of course Ben Stein is wrong. If we followed his way, every dumbass crackpot will be able to officially call his 'theory' of how we came about "science", without passing any actual rigorous scientific process.

This movie caters to the very dumb asses in this country that are bringing our country down in the biotechnology race.

Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: Crono
What? Did I say anything about the sphericity of the earth?

You might as well have.

This deserves to be repeated.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: OrByte
evolution is theory. Just like everything else.

and everybody chooses a side based on faith.

But please, dont let me stop you from looking down at everyone else that doesn't believe what you believe.

Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. You're basically arguing that because atomic theory has theory in the title, atoms don't exist. This line of argument is absolutely wrong, and you should feel ashamed that you are using it.

For everyone who said Ben Stein is advocating ID but not creationism, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, proponents of ID almost universally believe that God is responsible in some way for the creation of the first life (in addition to guiding human evolution). Just because it's not a literal Biblical interpretation doesn't mean that it's not creationism. I'd say that it was obvious that Ben Stein is arguing that God played a role in the initial creation of life; why else would he spend time blasting the theory of evolution for not explaining how life originated?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: kranky
I don't know if Ben Stein is right or wrong, but I do know that he has done a lot more research on the topic than any of those in this thread who are using their "jump to conclusions" mat.

Of course Ben Stein is wrong. If we followed his way, every dumbass crackpot will be able to officially call his 'theory' of how we came about "science", without passing any actual rigorous scientific process.

This movie caters to the very dumb asses in this country that are bringing our country down in the biotechnology race.

Wow you guys' comprehension suck. He's not even denying evolution. He is merely stating the fact that if someone in academia questions the theory of evolution because of the fact it does not explain origin of life that he is in effect blacklisted and ruined by the atheists who run academic dogma. He is merely stating he wants fairness.

Ben riding another slippery slope here. The origin of life, and how life got from that origin to it's present forms are two separate things. Just because we do not know the origin (the exact mechanism for how chuck of dead matter begins metabolizing), has nothing to do with evolution being wrong. There are zero scientists out there pounding each other over the head with cudgels over how life started; so to say because science is not sure of this mechanism, does NOT mean it is unsure of the mechanism for evolution, which is quite clearly natural selection in some form or another.