Quote from Jack
Quote from name:FaZ-
Quote from Jack
[evolution] isn't good science
Saying evolution has little scientific backing is like saying the World Cup isn't very popular: you'd be demonstrably wrong and the only place people wouldn't immediately think you're a complete idiot is in the United States.
I figured I'd post our PM'ed discussion. If anyone wants to continue from his perspective or has critiques or extensions of the arguments from either side, feel free to contribute. I'm not sure if this will turn into serious discussion, I figured it would be best left here for now but some people might benefit from reading it.
Quote from name:FaZ-
I'd be happy to clear up any doubts you personally have about evolution, but I'm not doing your research for you. Find any scientific organization that makes any serious progress in biology or an evolutionarily related field and then find its view on evolution. There is more scientific consensus on the issue than virtually any other modern contested theory, except in the US where we have clueless religious figures telling people what to believe instead of asking them to find out for themselves.
The vast majority of scientists who speak out against the theory have no relevant publishings; this is essentially the definition of scientific consensus. If you'd like to provide a counterpoint to that, find a single study published in a scientific peer review journal that seriously attacks evolution. I'd be surprised if you can cite even a single one published in the past decade. Most often, the "PhD's" making the loud and completely unsubstantiated claims about how evolution is garbage or proven wrong have degrees in unrelated fields of study and certainly don't have any credentials in the field whatsoever to make the authoritative statements they do. But hey, their books sell well.
The vast majority of scientists who speak out against the theory have no relevant publishings; this is essentially the definition of scientific consensus. If you'd like to provide a counterpoint to that, find a single study published in a scientific peer review journal that seriously attacks evolution. I'd be surprised if you can cite even a single one published in the past decade. Most often, the "PhD's" making the loud and completely unsubstantiated claims about how evolution is garbage or proven wrong have degrees in unrelated fields of study and certainly don't have any credentials in the field whatsoever to make the authoritative statements they do. But hey, their books sell well.
Quote from Jack
Quote
There is more scientific consensus on the issue than virtually any other modern contested theory
I have yet to see any evidence of evolution. If the generally accepted theory of evolution as accepted by scientists is true, there should be hundreds, thousands, millions of transitional fossils. There are perhaps 100 on wikipedia, which are fairly debatable.
Keep in mind that I have a problem with macroevolution and evolution from a common ancestor. I have no problem with microevolution, as that agrees with the Bible and is scientifically provable.
Quote from name:FaZ-
You can't cite argument ad populum when statements are made by the people most knowledgeable in the field we're talking about. If a poll on Fox News asked "Do you believe in evolution?" and someone tries to say that's meaningful, that would be argument ad populum. When people at the highest level in their field speak about their subject, absolutely not - that is how we gain knowledge. Here are a vast number of scientific communities that explicitly reject intelligent design, all with cited quotes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_societies_rejecting_intelligent_design
You clearly don't understand how difficult the conditions are to form a fossil. Bones don't just last for millions of years, they decompose quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils On top of that, transitional species are just that: transitional. They are between one stable species and another, usually due to a change in environment. In evolutionary terms, they don't last long. The only reason so many have been found is because we know these conditions and are actively searching in those areas.
Speciation events aren't exactly common but some have been observed recently. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito is the most well known of them, to me. Vestigial organs also make these events very clear. As for the last common ancestor, I can't really say what problem you might have, it's been pretty readily shown that such an ancestor is extremely likely; the alternative is essentially multiple abiogenisis events.
Any other questions, feel free, but saying you haven't seen any evidence of evolution just says to me that you aren't looking very hard.
You clearly don't understand how difficult the conditions are to form a fossil. Bones don't just last for millions of years, they decompose quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils On top of that, transitional species are just that: transitional. They are between one stable species and another, usually due to a change in environment. In evolutionary terms, they don't last long. The only reason so many have been found is because we know these conditions and are actively searching in those areas.
Speciation events aren't exactly common but some have been observed recently. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito is the most well known of them, to me. Vestigial organs also make these events very clear. As for the last common ancestor, I can't really say what problem you might have, it's been pretty readily shown that such an ancestor is extremely likely; the alternative is essentially multiple abiogenisis events.
Any other questions, feel free, but saying you haven't seen any evidence of evolution just says to me that you aren't looking very hard.
Quote from Jack
BAH Lost my PM TWICE
Your argument is still ad populum: "Most scientists believe something, so it must be true". I want cold hard evidence, not hundreds of scientists saying "X is true because we all say it is true and we so pro so it must be true."
I don't know enough about fossils to argue with you about it; I'll have to do some research. From what I understood of the matter, there's enough fossils found of all the currently known species that there should also be many transitional fossils, but very few or no transitional fossils have been found.
As for vestigial organs: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html
Basically, organs thought to be vestigial have been found to actually have uses. Just because we haven't worked out all the uses of all the vestigial organs doesn't mean a use doesn't exist. I'm surprised they still teach that vestigial organs are proof of evolution, I thought they debunked that and stopped using that argument a long time ago. Mind you, they still use those drawn pics of babies going through evolutionary cycles and stuff, even though that was proved to be rubbish a while ago...
Your argument is still ad populum: "Most scientists believe something, so it must be true". I want cold hard evidence, not hundreds of scientists saying "X is true because we all say it is true and we so pro so it must be true."
I don't know enough about fossils to argue with you about it; I'll have to do some research. From what I understood of the matter, there's enough fossils found of all the currently known species that there should also be many transitional fossils, but very few or no transitional fossils have been found.
As for vestigial organs: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs.html
Basically, organs thought to be vestigial have been found to actually have uses. Just because we haven't worked out all the uses of all the vestigial organs doesn't mean a use doesn't exist. I'm surprised they still teach that vestigial organs are proof of evolution, I thought they debunked that and stopped using that argument a long time ago. Mind you, they still use those drawn pics of babies going through evolutionary cycles and stuff, even though that was proved to be rubbish a while ago...
Quote from name:FaZ-
The argument is not ad populum, scientists have provided support and evidence for their position in literally millions of peer reviewed journal articles. In them, you'll find the people most qualified to be discussing their field are discussing their field. That is quite literally the definition of argument from authority, the most important aspect of inductive reasoning. There has been no counterargument from authority that even remotely comes close to credibly attacking evolution or providing an alternative theory.
There is no "smoking gun" that's going to show that evolution is true to you, the simple fact is that all evidence that we've ever observed fits easily into our current understanding of evolution. I could compile arguments dozens of pages long and still have fresh material to go on for years, and I've only taken a couple of college level biology courses. Meanwhile, there are NO scientific arguments whatsoever in support of your position. You're arguing as if your religion, which by nature can't be shown to be untrue, has to be disproved before evolution can be believed: that is an impossible task and quite a silly position to take in a debate.
As for the link you gave, I don't think anyone knowledgeable would call the spleen a vestigial organ. The author of that article has no credible experience or degree in biology, going along with what I said earlier. Being able to live without it doesn't mean it's vestigial, you can live with one kidney for example or even without your entire lower half. There are far more clear examples of vestigial structures: hind legs in whales, for example, or the wings of birds that can neither fly nor swim. Have you had your wisdom teeth removed? The human jaw is smaller than the ape jaw, causing teeth to be crammed together. Have you ever had goosebumps? Humans are relatively hairless, so the goosebumps which in other species have kept animals warmer or made them more intimidating now do nothing. There are dozens of other examples of human vestigiality, and that's without even going into the DNA comparisons between species, which make phylogenetic trees incredibly easy to produce.
Scientists don't use anything remotely like this, people lying to you who want to discredit evolution do so. It's called a strawman argument and it's a widely used tool for convincing people of something that they already want to believe. When is the last time you listened to a scientist support evolution, rather than listening to someone who contests evolution describe the theory? It's blatant strawman and it's pathetic, this is why so many ignorant people think evolution means that one day two monkeys just gave birth to a human.
There is no "smoking gun" that's going to show that evolution is true to you, the simple fact is that all evidence that we've ever observed fits easily into our current understanding of evolution. I could compile arguments dozens of pages long and still have fresh material to go on for years, and I've only taken a couple of college level biology courses. Meanwhile, there are NO scientific arguments whatsoever in support of your position. You're arguing as if your religion, which by nature can't be shown to be untrue, has to be disproved before evolution can be believed: that is an impossible task and quite a silly position to take in a debate.
As for the link you gave, I don't think anyone knowledgeable would call the spleen a vestigial organ. The author of that article has no credible experience or degree in biology, going along with what I said earlier. Being able to live without it doesn't mean it's vestigial, you can live with one kidney for example or even without your entire lower half. There are far more clear examples of vestigial structures: hind legs in whales, for example, or the wings of birds that can neither fly nor swim. Have you had your wisdom teeth removed? The human jaw is smaller than the ape jaw, causing teeth to be crammed together. Have you ever had goosebumps? Humans are relatively hairless, so the goosebumps which in other species have kept animals warmer or made them more intimidating now do nothing. There are dozens of other examples of human vestigiality, and that's without even going into the DNA comparisons between species, which make phylogenetic trees incredibly easy to produce.
Quote
Mind you, they still use those drawn pics of babies going through evolutionary cycles and stuff, even though that was proved to be rubbish a while ago...
Quote from Jack
Quote
Scientists don't use anything remotely like this, people lying to you who want to discredit evolution do so. It's called a strawman argument and it's a widely used tool for convincing people of something that they already want to believe. When is the last time you listened to a scientist support evolution, rather than listening to someone who contests evolution describe the theory? It's blatant strawman and it's pathetic, this is why so many ignorant people think evolution means that one day two monkeys just gave birth to a human.
I can't be bothered arguing with you any more
Quote from name:FaZ-
What you're talking about is recapitulation theory. It was indeed developed by prominent scientists... over a hundred years ago. It was then shown to be untrue and only appears in biology textbooks today as evidence of competing theories at the time. As we learned more, we found data that didn't fit that model and thus the model was thrown out. I studied this in class and can scan the relevant pages of my textbook next time I'm home, if you'd like. The "Reader's Digest Book of Facts" is not a scientific journal, not peer reviewed, and I can assure you that no one even remotely knowledgeable about evolution was involved in that publishing.
You're told this, but you're too stubborn to intelligently consider that you're being lied to. If you spent 15 minutes and researched it for yourself, instead of being told what to believe, you'd find how absolutely absurd the discussion is. It is a blatant strawman argument, no credible evolutionary biologist has supported that position in nearly a hundred years.
Quote
I'm told it's still printed in some science books, even though the scientific community at large has debunked and disagreed with it.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 2 2011, 5:04 pm by FaZ-.
None.