RunRyder RC
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     19      20     ( 21 )     22      23     NEXT    >> ] 51877 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
08-28-2013 11:48 AM  5 years agoPost 401
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Another good article

Disclaimer: the reading of this article may require the need for some tissues ,please be prepared in the event of foaming.

Jerry Coyne and the “Fact” of Evolution

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Dr. Jerry Coyne is recognized in atheistic circles as one of, if not the, leading evolutionary biologists in the world. He has written a book, Why Evolution Is True, that leading atheists such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens have widely endorsed. Allegedly, Dr. Coyne has compiled an insurmountable case for evolution.

On closer inspection, however, one begins to see serious flaws with Coyne’s “evidence” and his mode of reasoning. One of his most serious deficiencies is the way in which he equivocates the term evolution. Equivocation is a classic tool of dishonest argument in which a person gives a term multiple meanings and then uses the term in a different sense than is correct. For instance, suppose a person were to say: “I’m holding nothing in my hand, and nothing is stronger than God. So what I have in my hand is stronger than God.” Anyone listening to the statement understands that there is some type of “sleight of hand” at play. The rub lies in the multiple meanings of the word nothing. In the first instance, it means “non-existence,” and in the second instance, it means “of the things that do exists, not one fits the category.” Thus, the logical fallacy of equivocation is one that often muddles the issue at hand.

Throughout Coyne’s book he abuses the term evolution, defining it in multiple ways and equivocating it. For instance, he states: “Evolution is a fact” (2009, p. xiii). What does he mean by the term evolution? That is the question. In some places, he defines the term as the idea that all life arose by naturalistic processes from “a single naked replicating molecule” (p. 233). According to that definition, evolution most certainly is not a fact for many reasons, not the least of which is that life cannot arise from non-living “molecules” (see Miller, 2012). In other places, however, Coyne defines the term in ways that any creation scientist would freely acknowledge to be true.

For instance, on page 180, Coyne discusses experiments in which biologists force “animals or plants to adapt through evolution to different environments…. After a period of adaptation, the different ‘populations’ are tested in the lab to see if they have evolved reproductive barriers.” Notice that in this instance of the use of the term “evolution,” Coyne simply means a process by which organisms can change slightly to adapt to their environment. Few, if any, creationists would argue that animals do not adapt based on their environment and built-in genetic flexibility. The fact that animals can adapt and change to a certain degree is quite different from the idea that all life arose from a single molecule. Carefully watch the argument then. Evolution is seen in a lab (minor adaptations), thus we must admit that evolution (molecules to man) is true. Such equivocation from one of the leading proponents of evolution should alert the critical reader to a serious deficiency in the molecules-to-man aspect of the term evolution.

Again, on page 217, Coyne talks about human “evolution” that we can envision occurring. He mentions that one human allele called CCR5-∆32 “provides its carriers with strong protection against infection with the AIDS virus.” He then states, “We can predict that if AIDS continues as a significant source of mortality, the frequency of this allele will rise in affected populations. That’s evolution, as surely as is antibiotic resistance in bacteria.” Notice again the equivocation. No creationist (to my knowledge) has any problem recognizing the existence of certain alleles that might proffer a certain benefit to those humans that have them. Nor would the spread of those alleles throughout portions of the human population militate against anything proposed by the creation model. By terming this process as “evolution,” Coyne then says that we know evolution (molecules to man) is true.

At one point in his book, Coyne tacitly admits what he is doing. On page 143, he states:

True, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven’t turned bacterium into an amoeba (although, as we’ve seen, new bacterial species have arisen in the lab). But it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection. Big transformations take time—huge spans of it. To really see the power of selection, we must extrapolate the small changes that selection creates in our lifetime over the millions of years that it has really had to work in nature.

While he does not openly admit to equivocating the term evolution, he does differentiate between what is actually seen in the laboratory (and in nature), and what we must “extrapolate” from what we see. In reality, his “extrapolation” of “big transformations” is the antiscientific idea of molecules-to-man evolution. Were he to stop where the evidence stops, he would be forced to say that small changes—about which both creationists and evolutionists agree—have not been shown to render “big transformations” (for more information on this fact, see Butt, 2006; Butt 2008; Thompson and Harrub, 2002; Thompson, 1994).

Coyne’s use of the logical fallacy of equivocation belies the inherent weakness of the theory of evolution that he attempts to defend. No legitimate, factual scientific evidence has ever been produced that remotely substantiates the concept that a single replicating molecule evolved into a human over millions of years of mindless, materialistic processes. Were we to stick only with what we know to be fact, we would be forced to conclude, as the late atheist-turned-believer Antony Flew commented: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind (2007, p. 132).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2006), “What Do the Finches Prove?,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...9&article=1652.

Butt, Kyle (2008), “Mutant Fruit Flies Bug Evolution,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APC...9&article=2501.

Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper One).

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis (Part 1),” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APC...2&article=4165.

Thompson, Bert (1994), “Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance—Proof of Evolution?,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...=9&article=572.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “Fifteen Answers to Scientific American’s Nonsense,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...?category=9&art

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 01:42 PM  5 years agoPost 402
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Helimatt,
They adapted; you can call it evolution which it is in the strictest sense. But not a controlled experiment, incomplete data; so not good science (yet).
I'm sorry you feel the Lizards are not doing "Good Science" however they are living proof of evolution.

You are aware that when the lizards were placed in 1971 the Croatian War of Independence erupted, ending in the mid-1990s. The researchers couldn't get back to island because of the war. So sorry for the missing data. Although it is missing it doesn't change the end result.
Genetic mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate that the lizards currently on Pod Mrèaru are indeed P. sicula and are genetically indistinguishable from lizards from the source population [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5].
Fig 5
Fig. 5. Neighbor-Joining tree of Jukes-Cantor distances derived from a concatenated alignment of partial mitochondrial 12S rDNA and 16S rDNA sequences, showing phylogenetic relationships among a selected number of populations of P. sicula and P. melisellensis including individuals from the two populations studied here. The tree includes previously published data (13, 14) retrieved from genbank. Lizards cluster according to species and the populations from Pod Kopi[icirc]ste and Pod Mr[icirc]caru are identical and P. sicula. This suggests that the original species inhabiting Pod Mr[icirc]caru (P. melisellensis) has gone extinct on this island. Newly sequenced P. melisellensis specimens were from Pasadur on Lastovo Island. Only bootstrap values [mt]70% are shown. Populations sampled in this study are indicated in bold.

Great link by the way
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/

Is what the DNA here proves is these are in fact the same Lizards that have evolved not lizards that have been mistaken.

Thomas,

Have I told you about the Lizards from Pod Mrcaru sorry there is no fossil record I hope you can except living animals. I posted a video about fossils last post you should watch it. As you can see with the lizards there are reasons why you might not find fossils, you need to remember that not every creature that lived became a fossil.

Do you own shares in apologeticspress.org or something? The problem with quoting these sorts of sites Tom is they have an agenda which is to back Christian mythology and make the evidence fit the story and it's just not credible. Real science papers do not favour anyone they state the facts nothing more nothing less.

Here is the real kicker in science the best way to become famous is to prove another scientist wrong. So prove Einstein's theory of relativity wrong instant fame Nobel prize. Prove Darwin wrong instant fame Nobel prize. This list goes on. If any of these papers you keep pulling from this site had any weight at all well need I say more one of them tried to use the story of Noahs ark none of it is credible and I'm sorry if you believe Noahs ark is a true story well that is just delusional.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 01:54 PM  5 years agoPost 403
Hoggy42

rrNovice

Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I wanted you Christian theists to take a look at this video of Dawkins this is taken from a series called the Faith School Menace (you can watch it all on YouTube) it's about the faith schools in the UK now these schools are forced by the Government to teach evolution and other real science. However I'd like you to watch this part it's a Muslim school I want you to see this from the other side so you can see the problem.

Watch at YouTube

And then I'd like you to take a look at this I really hope this is not what they are teaching in your schools.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 02:19 PM  5 years agoPost 404
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hoggy, I was not trying to infer that anyone intentionally did not do "good science" but rather that it is incomplete, and therefore conclusions are preliminary at best. In any case, the later post with DNA investigation results does confirm that the adapted lizards are offspring from the original population with no genetic evolution. There is no mutation, no new genotype, no novel genetic information.

Berkely University states as nearly any other institution does that genetic change is by definition a necessary component of evolution, when defined in the way we have here:
Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...le/mutations_01

So not splitting hairs- by the ground rules for a discussion on evolution, be it "macro evolution" or "synthesized theory of evolution" the lizard experiment is remarkable in the adapations it displays- but goes NOWHERE to demonstrate evidence for evolution.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 02:24 PM  5 years agoPost 405
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Prove Darwin wrong instant fame Nobel prize.
Scientists already believe Darwin was wrong on many points. Part of this stems from advances in science in genetics. Part also stems from the difficulty explaining the fossils consistently. In addition, molecular phylogenic sequencing is proving to give much different results than older traditional methods, and there is yet little consensus. That is why a practicing evolutionist will not call himself a Darwinian evolutionist but rather "neo-Darwinian" or "Modern Synthesis Theory". The "theory of evolution" is so nebulous, definitions are so elastic, that it is nonsensical to speak of proving the theory wrong as if it were some cohesive whole.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 02:28 PM  5 years agoPost 406
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Speaking of fossils- and since this is a discussion I'm very interested hearing from some folks about this: how did the petrified forest in Arizona form? What does evolutionary theory say about that? From what evidence or examples can we base this?

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 02:54 PM  5 years agoPost 407
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I cannot view the Youtube video here at work and have not had much time at home. In any case, I will later.

For the record, I thought this was a discussion of evolution and understanding how or if it works. Naturally, I guess, it becomes a matter of belief in origins and creation. I've been thinking that taking pains to note deficiencies or gaps or inconsistencies in one framework (naturalistic evolution) is by its nature rather negative; let me here confirm that I like science, I like scientific discovery, I like the promise of improving quality of life, reducing suffering and pain, and stimulating economic growth that science can bring mankind.

Let's also draw the obvious observation: Much of the aura around evolutionary explaination for life and its origins is that it somehow proves that there is no God, and/or that there is no need for a God. I certainly have a problem with that objective; the science does not in any way support such a conclusion. And I believe that it is this misguided desire to negate the supernatural that pervades much of the academic and published work concerning evolution that has caused otherwise brilliant and hard-working people to come to very intenable and indefensible claims.

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 03:42 PM  5 years agoPost 408
Phaedrus

rrKey Veteran

S. Orange County, California

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Let's also draw the obvious observation: Much of the aura around evolutionary explaination for life and its origins is that it somehow proves that there is no God, and/or that there is no need for a God. I certainly have a problem with that objective; .
This is where I think you go astray. Evolution has nothing to do with proving anything about God, that is an assumption that you as a creationist overprint. Much of what you are doing is driven by the desire to find holes in evolutionary theory because this bolsters your "belief" in divine creation.

You say you like science, yet what you write, and the clear motivation behind it, tend to say exactly the opposite. I have never met a scientist who gave a moments thought to trying to disprove God by their work. Nobody I have ever known in any scientific field has had that as their motivation. But since many people of faith feel science challenges their beliefs, then they feel it necessary to diminish science and its ability to explain how the universe works.

You have gotten at a deeper truth here however. Science, by its very nature, relies on rational thought and the unemotional application of rigorous critical thinking skills. If something does not fit or work, science abandons it. This is diametrically opposed to the unquestioning acceptance of ideas based on dogma. Dogma, by its very nature, is unchanging and relies on faith rather than critical thinking.

What I see is not that evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geologists, microbiologists, etc. setting out to prove the God does not exist, but rather smart people of faith having just enough honestly to realize that science does a really good job of explaining how the world works, and that realization causes a cognitive dissonance that elicits a backlash against science and a desire to show it is wrong.

AMA Leader Member
Go FASST, or Go Home!!
Team Futaba

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 03:44 PM  5 years agoPost 409
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Helimatt well spoken sir . I applaud your efforts and hope that they will see what you are so eger for them to understand.

Hoggy as far as my posting from the apologetics web site references for all the information used to create the articles are included at the bottom. These references are from just as creadable sources and scientist as your quotes are taken from and deserve to be part of a discussion. There is always bias in any scientific study because we are all human ( best guess here but at times I have doubts). Every study starts with a bias goal in mind or they wouldn't bother the study in the first place. This will always effect the outcome Reguardless of wo you are. As I stated before I hae and will always question everything until I come to my own conclusion based on all the evidence. Is this not the proper way?

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 04:58 PM  5 years agoPost 410
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Much of the aura around evolutionary explaination for life and its origins is that it somehow proves that there is no God
This is a ignorant interpretation.

Science ignores god.

Now in these forums it is a free for all, you discount science you know nothing about, so we discount your god, you also know nothing about.

Since theist did most of the work on evolutionary science, you still have so much to learn.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:00 PM  5 years agoPost 411
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hoggy as far as my posting from the apologetics web site references for all the information used to create the articles are included at the bottom.
You post quote mined lies, that only tell half the truth at best, leaving out the important details.

YOU got caught at this.

Apologetic websites are not credible sources.

And the fact you ignorant as hell about what you post, you have no business copying and pasting anything.
Is this not the proper way?
No it is not.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:06 PM  5 years agoPost 412
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Speaking of fossils- and since this is a discussion I'm very interested hearing from some folks about this: how did the petrified forest in Arizona form?
Not bright enough to use a search engine?

Try Google or Bing, Then type in your desired location or subject, hit ENTER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrif...t_National_Park

Petrified Forest National Park is known for its fossils, especially of fallen trees that lived in the Late Triassic period of the Mesozoic era, about 225 million years ago. During this period, the region that is now the park was near the equator on the southwestern edge of the supercontinent Pangaea, and its climate was humid and sub-tropical.[11] What later became northeastern Arizona was a low plain flanked by mountains to the south and southeast and a sea to the west. Streams flowing across the plain from the highlands deposited inorganic sediment and organic matter, including trees as well as other plants and animals that had entered or fallen into the water. Although most organic matter decays rapidly or is eaten by other organisms, some is buried so quickly that it remains intact and may become fossilized.[12] Within the park, the sediments containing the fossil logs for which the park is named are part of the Chinle Formation

The colorful Chinle, which appears on the surface in many parts of the southwestern United States and from which the Painted Desert gets its name, is up to 800 feet (240 m) thick in the park.[12] It consists of a variety of sedimentary rocks including beds of soft, fine-grained mudstone, siltstone, and claystone—much of which is bentonite—as well as harder sandstone and conglomerate, and limestone.[11][12] Exposed to wind and water, the Chinle usually erodes differentially into badlands made up of cliffs, gullies, mesas, buttes, and rounded hills.[12] Its bentonite clay, which swells when wet and shrinks while drying, causes surface movement and cracking that discourages plant growth. Lack of plant cover makes the Chinle especially susceptible to weathering

About 60 million years ago, tectonic movements of Earth’s crust began to uplift the Colorado Plateau, of which the Painted Desert is part.[11] Eventually parts of the plateau rose to 10,000 feet (3,000 m) above sea level.[11] This warping of Earth’s surface led to the gradual and continuing destruction of the plateau by erosion.[13] An unconformity (break in the rock record) of about 200 million years occurs within the park, where erosion has removed all the rock layers above the Chinle except geologically recent ones. The Bidahochi Formation, laid down only 8 to 4 million years ago, rests directly atop the Chinle, and rocks laid down in the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and much of the Tertiary are absent.[11]

Painted desert and petrified logs seen from Blue MesaDuring the period of the Bidahochi deposition, a large lake basin covered much of northeastern Arizona. The older (lower) layers of the formation consist of fluvial and lacustrine (lake-related) deposits of silt, sand, and clay. The younger (upper) Bidahochi contains ash and lava from volcanoes that erupted nearby and as far away as southwestern Nevada.[11] Although much of the Bidahochi has since eroded, a small part of it outcrops in the northern part of the park—on Pilot Rock in the park’s wilderness section and along the rim of the Painted Desert between Pintado and Tawa points.[12] Exposed by erosion of the Bidahochi are volcanic landforms called maars (flat-bottomed, roughly circular volcanic craters of explosive origin). A maar vent can be seen from the Pintado Point lookout.[11]

During the Quaternary Period (1.8 million years ago up to today), deposits of windblown sand and alluvium covered much of the Chinle and Bidahochi. Older dunes range in age from 500,000 years at higher elevations in the northern part of the park to about 10,000 years in sandy drainage areas such as Lithodendron Wash. Stabilized by

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:08 PM  5 years agoPost 413
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hoggy as far as my posting from the apologetics web site references for all the information used to create the articles are included at the bottom.
You post quote mined lies, that only tell half the truth at best, leaving out the important details.

Apologetic websites are not credible sources.
And the fact you ignorant as hell about what you post, you have no business copying and pasting anything.
Is this not the proper way?
No it is not.
I am posting half truths ? You are posting outright lies dude! Grow up

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:14 PM  5 years agoPost 414
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Tom this is false.
There is always bias in any scientific study because we are all human
Its peer reviewed and will not be accepted with bias.

Not only that, and you have been told this before in this very thread. Science does not prove anything, it observes and reports.

Anyone who questions evolution, needs to have their head examined due to the overwhelming evidence for it.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:16 PM  5 years agoPost 415
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I am posting half truths ?
That and lies.

I caught you and posting lies from apologetic sources that quote mined a biologist, who states creationist interpreted him incorrectly.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:17 PM  5 years agoPost 416
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What lie did I post?

Dont say creation is outlawed in public schools in a science class, because it is.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 05:43 PM  5 years agoPost 417
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why dont creationist propose a replacement hypothesis? Instead of hunting down holes science has not dicovered and exploiting these gaps?

Because a magic beareded man in the clouds saying here it is, snapping his fingers sounds so much better.

What gives goat herders 3000 years ago the authority to describe nature to modern men?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 07:44 PM  5 years agoPost 418
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The danger of ignorant creatioist on humanity

http://archive.adl.org/issue_religi...onism_print.asp

Teaching religious ideas as fact further undermines science education by misinforming students about the scientific method -- the basis for science literacy. The scientific method teaches students the fundamentals of science -- how to observe data, perform experiments and form scientific theory. Religious explanations for creation are not science – they cannot be confirmed or denied by the scientific method. Teaching them as science confuses and misleads students about the scientific method, thereby depriving them of a high-quality science education

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 08:27 PM  5 years agoPost 419
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What lie did I post?

Dont say creation is outlawed in public schools in a science class, because it is.
What I posted in red to get your attention was a twisted percision of npmy statement which even according to wiki was a boldface lie not unlike your version of evolution.

Secondly creation is not outlawed in public school it is being taught in many public schools, namely Texas to start with and the list goes on.

You cannot legalize morality. It's internal not external. You either have it or you don't.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-28-2013 08:44 PM  5 years agoPost 420
helimatt

rrElite Veteran

Lafayette, IN

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

not bright enough to use a search engine?

Try Google or Bing, Then type in your desired location or subject, hit ENTER.
Oh, okay.

Anyone ELSE want to intelligently discuss things pertaining to evolution?

Never, ever, ever, ever give up.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 98 pages [ <<    <     19      20     ( 21 )     22      23     NEXT    >> ] 51877 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Understanding Evolution
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 16  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, November 17 - 8:11 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online