Who the hell would believe in evolution???

I don't get why you guys have to argue this with such extreme sides on it. There is a happy medium.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your 'happy medium' basically says 'Christianity is right'. Well, I'm assuming it's Christianity. It might be Judaism.Whether you take Genesis literal or metaphorical, you are still taking the Bible as a valid authority in a field of science. It's not. Neither is any other Holy Book.If that is your belief, you may of course believe it - who am I to say otherwise, after all. However, it is not a compromise. I suspect that everybody who is not a Christian would not agree with the notion that Genesis is basically completely (if metaphorically) true.

Do you mind reading my post again... I'll write in shorter sentences.The point again, rephrased: the lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionists supreme confidence is unwarranted.

Would you mind reading mine. Originally you said that empirical evidence is necessary for someone to make a claim. I agree with this as without some form of evidence you are simply making a wild assertion. Luckikly, plenty of empirical evidence for Evolution exists, just go to a Natural History museum. The evidence for Evolution is abundant and any "layman" can readily gain access to it to verify their position. You are now moving the goal post by introducing this "empirical account" nonsense, that "unless you have seen it personally you can't really know" which is frankily moronic. How do you know you were born and that a stork didn't bring you, did you see your own birth or are you simply going with other people's accounts and evidence of other such births and the way they happened? The evidence exists and can be accessed whenever someone feels like it. For this reason an adopter of Evolution Theory can claim superiority as they can pull out verifiable information/proof as and when necessary. You don't have to do it on an individual basis for it to be valid so long as it has been done and verified in the past. Also as I asked before, if you really feel an "empirical account" is necessary for something like this have you talked to adopters of Evolution Theory and found out just how much they know? Have you tested them to see if they have had an "empirical account" of their own? Or are you simply making a statement based on your opinion and belief?

And secondly, I already said that you had argued successfully on "reasonableness". I'm not making a comparison of faith and reasonableness only faith and reasonableness against an empirical account.

Yes, which I brought forth through my story about Darwin and the Captain of the Beagle. He had his own empirical account as he had free access to Darwin's specimens and of course had just as much access to anything there was to be seen on any of the islands that the Beagle sailed to as anyone else. This is the part that it seems that you are leaving out and the part I am taking issue with. My example would thus qualify under your current set of requirements as a "layman" who had an "empirical account" of the evidence for the theory and came to the decision that the theory is good and valid.

God created the heavens and the earth, I believe this. Now, this is where the arguments get tricky, the Bible says that everything was created in 7 days. Well, some argue that a day was longer, and some argue that the Bible says it was a day and a night, so it must have been the same. This is where I kinda throw in the human element to the Bible. I believe that a day was different when the Earth was first formed. I believe that the person who wrote Genesis, I forget who, simply put days as a reference, something that every human could comprehend, because let's face it, we can't comprehend a time period longer than maybe a millennium. It is impossible for us to even try to comprehend eternity. I believe that the days was added simply because it was a unit of time that everyone understood, and because it obviously adds the "awe" factor to God.

The writer of the book of Genesis is Moses. And I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, before the 4th day, the whole 24 hours thing was not created. So the "Days" before it where the earth, the sea, the light, the darkness, the moon, the stars were created could have been a VERY long time.

Whether you take Genesis literal or metaphorical, you are still taking the Bible as a valid authority in a field of science. It's not. Neither is any other Holy Book.

Excuse me? They have been finding proof of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Giant flood, Noah's ark, The "Real" mount Sinai(Read my thread on Mt. Laowz.), etc.Those discoveries are backed by scientifical proof.

Excuse me? They have been finding proof of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Giant flood, Noah's ark, The "Real" mount Sinai(Read my thread on Mt. Laowz.), etc.Those discoveries are backed by scientifical proof.

Even if that were all true (and to say I seriously doubt it would be an understatement), that would only mean that some bits of the Bible are historically accurate. It does not mean that the Bible is scientifically accurate in any way.

As for the Bible being a valid authority, it isn't one in science. It is, however, very valid in history. The events of the Bible have all been proven, except for the Miracles and such. The Bible is quoted far and wide for historical reference.

By "the Miracles and such" do you include such events as the Flood or Moses getting the tablets?In any case, "quoted far and wide for historical reference" is blatantly false. I am willing to believe that, in communities so incredibly Christian as to be bordering on fundamentalism this is indeed the case. Outside of those communities... no. Just... no.

Who is to say science is right, if I'm not mistaken, the way that scientists date certain objects is all relative and hinges on guesswork. Carbon Dating is silly, considering you can't prove it is right. They take an object, measure the Carbon-14 and compared it to something they assume is from the same time period. What if they were wrong about the object they were using for the comparison?

...You know, I wish I were an actual scientist. That way I'd have a valid response to this. As it is, the only thing I can say is that it would be more accurate to say that they measure the amount of C-14 relative to the amount of Nitrogen-14 in the sample. After all, C-14 decays at a predictable rate into N-14 (creationist websites claiming that this isn't the case notwithstanding). This is enough to give a rough estimate of the sample's date (up to about 45,000 years).The later comparison to another object is mostly to make sure if they did it right and didn't accidentally test a contaminated sample.

If they weren't both true, then history has been very boring

Well... I'm sorry to break it to you, but history doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care what I think either, of course. But at least I don't pretend my belief system makes history exciting. I think history does a fine enough job on its own.

Again: the lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionists supreme confidence is unwarranted.Piecing out what that most simple argument means here is a classical analysis:(for the benefit of those who don't read Aristotle and probably Bacon)1 Some evolutionists lack an empirical account of the theory of evolution. These individuals are hereby qualified as "layman". Some evolutionists are layman.2 Some layman evolutionists are supremely confident about the theory being superior.3 An empirical account can be the only supreme basis of supreme confidence for all scientific theories that are based on evidence of an empirical nature.4 Lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionist's supreme confidence is unwarranted.5 Some evolutionists (layman) ought not be supremely confident.6 Some evolutionists (layman) ought not make claims on empirical evidence.I lay everything out so that you can find it easier to argue and argue pertinently. (Something you fail at miserably.) But to address your ignoratio elenchi argument just the same:[quote]Have you tested them to see if they have had an "empirical account" of their own? Or are you simply making a statement based on your opinion and belief?[quote]*Are you that clueless...* Do you know what an a priori argument is? The above argument is a priori which means that an empirical account is irrelevant. Wouldn't it make just as much sense if I stated it thus: if these ignorant evolutionists do exist, then they shouldn't be arrogant.Btw yet again you prove my point, when you assert that "[quote]The evidence exists and can be accessed whenever someone feels like it." Don't you perfectly sound like a faithful (creationist.) The evidence exists! By measure of what? Some personal assertion. And what an assertion! Dare I say, the very nature of which is akin if not indistinguishable from articles of faith.And to address your questions on (absurdity of) these class of propositions, these "empirical account" nonsense, I recommend reading topics on epistemology.

Edited by lordoftheflies, 06 April 2008 - 08:11 PM.

Btw yet again you prove my point, when you assert that "

The evidence exists and can be accessed whenever someone feels like it.

" Don't you perfectly sound like a faithful (creationist.) The evidence exists! By measure of what? Some personal assertion. And what an assertion! Dare I say, the very nature of which is akin if not indistinguishable from articles of faith.

So... wait, are you saying that until I actually held the actual Tiktaalik fossils, I am not allowed to say with certainty that Tiktaalik actually existed?

I do not believe in evoulution, b/c if i believed in such idiotic stuff like that i wouldn't believe in God, i don't know why scientists say that we evolved from gorillas in to men and etc. If you were one of those ppl who believe in evolution, i have nothing to say to you

To be honest, I don't like your view. It is very sad. Evolution does occur, whether you believe it or not. Now, macroevolution is a little hard for me to believe, but microevolution is perfectly acceptable.Macro = Fish-->Monkeys-->HumansMicro = Fish-->Fish with harder scales-->Fish with bigger Tail FinAnimals evolve to suit their environment, it is fact, I don't believe they transform though.

You have just become one of my most favorite people on this Forum. Yes, of course Evolution exists, But not MACROEVOLUTION. People mistake the fact that when Noah put animals in his boat, It wasnt each SPECIES, It was each GENUS. (Like Fish, Feline, Canine.) Microevolution has proof but Macroevolution does not. Scientists have been breeding flies for 30 years and still, all they get are FLIES.

Again: the lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionists supreme confidence is unwarranted.Piecing out what that most simple argument means here is a classical analysis:(for the benefit of those who don't read Aristotle and probably Bacon)1 Some evolutionists lack an empirical account of the theory of evolution. These individuals are hereby qualified as "layman". Some evolutionists are layman.

This is false, a "layman" is simply a non-expert, meaning they have no formal training/education/experience with the matter. If you would like a more formal definition a layman is "someone who is not a professional in a given field." This by no way means they lack knowledge and understanding. Your first point is wrong.

2 Some layman evolutionists are supremely confident about the theory being superior.

This I can agree with you.

3 An empirical account can be the only supreme basis of supreme confidence for all scientific theories that are based on evidence of an empirical nature.

Wrong. So long as the evidence exists and can be brought to bear no geniune "experience" is necessary. I can claim you possess DNA without needing to take a sample from you and sequence it as there is an abundance of evidence that humans do have DNA. I can claim that you have just as many G-bases as C-bases in said DNA without needing to sequence it since this information has a preponderance of information regarding that as well. I can claim that yout mitochondria provide your cells the energy they need without actually running an experiment on your specific cells because of the wealth of evidence that exists on the subject. Moving on to non-biological examples, I can claim that Einstein was right without needing to grab a telescope and view an Einstein ring since they have been discovered previously (and continue to be) and have detailed readings available for anyone who wants to see them. I can claim that pure sodium when exposed to water will react in a highly energetic way (explode) without needing to grab a hunk and do it myself as reliable, empirical evidence exists for this too.

4 Lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionist's supreme confidence is unwarranted.

Sorry but no. They can have as much confidence as they want in the theory, just not necessarily in their understanding of it.

5 Some evolutionists (layman) ought not be supremely confident.

A true statement only so far as it relates to their understanding of it.

6 Some evolutionists (layman) ought not make claims on empirical evidence.

Patently wrong as the empirical evidence exists. Anyone who knows about it can lay claim to its existence. For example, I might not have seen the bones of a wooly mammoth in person but I know they exist and can hold a claim to that knowledge. I might not have trapped light in a bottle and measured it's speed personally, but I can tell you how fast it is. If the knowledge exists and has sufficient empirical evidence to back it up you don't need to run an experiment or perform an observation (or whatever) yourself to be able to say that it exists.

I lay everything out so that you can find it easier to argue and argue pertinently. (Something you fail at miserably.)

How can I argue pertinently when you simply change your requirements every time? First no evidence exists for a layman. Then someone points of that a layman can have seen and understood empirical evidence so you switch to saying that a layman cannot understand empirical evidence, if they do they are not layman. So to refute this an example is provided where the opposite is the case. You then change to say that no, an "empirical account" is necessary. You base your entire arugment on a false condition. You are saying that unless someone has "experienced" the evidence first hand then they cannot lay claim to it. That's moronic. If something exists it exists. Evidence for Evolution exists, it's what the theory is based on after all. I don't need to jump aboard a boat and go to the Galapagos or see Darwin's finches myself to prove their existence and be able to use them in an argument supporting Evolution.

This is false, a "layman" is simply a non-expert

Tsk tsk. ignoratio elenchi again."Layman" is just a name I used in reference to a subset of evolutionists. I could have used any other term; but as long as I have delineated what that term signifies in my argument, I am not being vague. So it's pointless to argue over it. Tsk tsk.

So long as the evidence exists and can be brought to bear no geniune "experience" is necessary.

Tsk tsk. This time petitio principiiI hope you made a cursory search on the term a priori. It seems to me that this assertion of yours to existence is being made a priori. And if you read on the topic, you should know what that entails. If not a magnificent faithful assertion to existence, could it be faith on "the scientific" as a whole, then? Eitherway, you have only but asserted and you are in this respect on the same boat as creationists. And so yet again you've done nothing but prove my point (with an assertion...) But what an unpolished unsupported assertion! I suggest reading on the ontological proofs. Let St. Anselm and Descartes teach you a lesson on the proper way of deducing the existence of things.

That's moronic.

On the contrary and on a more pragmatic note, a healthy dose of skepticism has always been critical to the development of science. Developing better models can be a simple matter of taking a second look at assumptions of older ones. (Assumptions that the faithful like you wouldn't bother to investigate.) Critical observation follows naturally from skepticism. In the great scientific enterprise, only seekers have something to find.

Edited by lordoftheflies, 07 April 2008 - 06:22 AM.

Carbon Dating is silly, considering you can't prove it is right. They take an object, measure the Carbon-14 and compared it to something they assume is from the same time period. What if they were wrong about the object they were using for the comparison?

Actually, if I may interject, Carbon Dating is based on the extrapolation of known rates of radioactive decay in carbon-14, and not by comparing it to something that they believe is the same age. The point that people who think that it is unreliable to use Carbon Dating are trying to make is that we can't extrapolate as far as we have. I find it difficult to explain, but basically, we have a half life formula that we use to calculate how much carbon should be in something after so much time. (I think it's lnAt/Ao = -.693 x time, where At is the amount of carbon at time t, and Ao is the initial amount of carbon that is supposed to be there.) But the point is, it's reliable for short amounts of time. The only problem with it, is that we have no way to gauge its long-term accuracy. Despite this, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't be accurate.Edit: hm. perhaps I should've read all of your posts up until the last page before I replied.

Edited by Harlequin, 07 April 2008 - 07:39 AM.

You act very anti-christian. You are pretty rigid in your beliefs =P

Well, I think I'm allowed. I mean, people are allowed to believe whatever they want, but then I see that there are people out there who think that, when reality conflicts with the Bible, then reality must be wrong. This is so incredibly mind-boggling that I tend to overreact in the presence of people who say that the Bible is completely true. I mean, this is the book that claims that if you display striped patterns to pregnant cows, they will bear striped calfs (Genesis 30: 37-40).But if they just kept it to themselves, then OK. You can believe that rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11: 6) all you like. But no. Some of these people want the entire world to start considering the Bible as a valid source of science. I disagree with that.

If you were wondering, I'm agnostic, so let's not hang the Christian thing over my head.And yes, events of the Bible are true, and they are referenced pretty much everywhere.Oh, and miracles refer to anything that was "Godly." Parting of the Red Sea, The Tablets thing, the Resurrection, these are miracles. Granted I believe in most of them, there are a few that puzzle me, but they are all very interesting.

For someone who claims to be agnostic, you sure have a lot of Christian beliefs.Anyway, in my corner of the world (western Europe), the Bible is not seen as a valid historical document, however much you may say otherwise. If they do go to such lengths, their saying that in the year such-and-such the Bible says this-and-that happened carries about as much weight as saying that on Stardate such-and-such humans first encountered Klingons.

Ok, I find several GAPING holes in evolutionary theory. The chance that some chemicals just happened to react, and formeda perfectly good working organism that was self sufficient and capable of reproduction. extremely likely (sarcasm) I find it interesting we can't manage that in a lab, but it happened by itself in nature, but whatever. Then assuming the organism is able to reproduce, it may eventually become a colony organism. But when does it become a seperate organism. When does it lose it's ability to self reproduce, and why. Theres no good reason for it. The species would be better suited if it were able to reproduce asexually. My point is, the complexity of even the simplest organisms is astounding, and to think that they came around by accident is a little hard to swallow for me. Also note, this would probably have to happen several times. My other problem is the macro-evolution. Too many animals are specialized in a way that there's no way for them to have gradually become that way. My favorite example, bats. A bat is a mammal, but can fly. Its bone structures are ridiculously different from any other mammal. And assuming, that their ancestor could not fly, i see no gradual way to shift from a more traditional set of front legs to wings. It you go halfway, you have an animal that can neither walk nor fly, and so would go extinct. Along with the ability to fly, their echolocation. It really is three systems. Specialized mouths to emit pitches, specialized ears to hear the pitches, and specialized brains to interpret. Now if these three evolve gradually, they're more of less useless, and would not enhandce the animals ability to survive, so no darwinism here. And if any one of the three developes fully by mutation without the others, it's useless. So all three have to develope simultaneously for any benefit, along with flight. So more or less, a full fledged bat would have had to been born due to mutation. Theres several other examples, whales, the blowhole shifting does little good with gradual movent, but required major shifting of the anatomy, the nasal openings shifting all the way up (through the skull) and onto the neck. Now to me this suggests that such animals would have to appear fully "evolved", due to mutation. However, if you look at the mutations that occur now, there is almost 100% no benefit, or even problems caused, ie two headed animals, extra limbs, etc. When the genetic code is messed up, causing a dramatic shift, it most often is useless. The other problem is, sayan animal does have a usefull mutation unless there's another one, theres no garuntee the mutation is passed on, and every suceeding generation is going to lead to the animals return to normalcy. For mutations to work, you would have to have several beneficial mutations, capable of reproduction, at the same time, and they would have to reproduce. To me this seems highly unlikely, and yet, look we have all kinds of different species. As for the few people i read saying that human beings are now taller than we once were, thats nothing but adaptation, microevolution if you will, and i've got not problem with it. But in no way have you shifted species, or even really begun to shift species. There are certain variables in all dna, and selective breeding can bring out those differences, but it doesn't change the base species. This is how we have the different breeds of dogs, cats, and races of humans. Carbon dating, a few thoughts, its a theory, and its been proven to be grossly innaccurate. first the theory part. No one has ever been around to measure the full decay of cabon 14, and as such we have no way of TRULY knowing its rate. We assume it decays at a constant, but we can't know for sure. Also, enviromental factors can change the rate of decay, THAT we know for sure. One of the other benchmarks we use is sediment layers, whether it be soil or ice. I seem to remember some wwii planes buried in 100000 years of ice layers. And yet we use carbon samples from that ice as our benchmark to test the rate of decay. Its a seriously flawed process, and the results are sketchy at best Theres other arguments, but i'm tired and grumpy, so i'll let you chew on the above. I've heard it said, the chance of evolution producing a fully functional animal is that of a tornado hitting a junkjard and producing a fully functional 747. I've been told that my arguments, since they aren't saying its impossible, just extremely unlikely and therefore i can't believe in it. Well to that, isn't that your problem with god.

Wow. I am so not going to go into detail here. Firstly because I'm not a biologist, and secondly because I'm lazy.Still... a few small notes that may help.

Ok, I find several GAPING holes in evolutionary theory. The chance that some chemicals just happened to react, and formed a perfectly good working organism that was self sufficient and capable of reproduction. extremely likely (sarcasm)

This is a (strawman) argument against abiogenesis. Not evolution. Furthermore, no single abiogenesis hypothesis claims that the first amoeba just popped into existence somehow. That would be a creationist argument, after all.

I find it interesting we can't manage that in a lab, but it happened by itself in nature, but whatever.

Actually... we can manage that. Oh, no experiment has gone the full nine yards, I admit. Not yet anyway.However, we have observed organic molecules arising from non-organic molecules - the first (or possibly second) step in most abiogenesis hypotheses.

Then assuming the organism is able to reproduce, it may eventually become a colony organism. But when does it become a seperate organism. When does it lose it's ability to self reproduce, and why. Theres no good reason for it. The species would be better suited if it were able to reproduce asexually.

Skipping a few steps here from amoeba to plant to animal (or some such).In any case, the advantage of sexual reproduction is that it introduces variation more easily. Beings that clone themselves will change very, very slowly, but being that mix and match with each other can change somewhat more speedily.

My point is, the complexity of even the simplest organisms is astounding, and to think that they came around by accident is a little hard to swallow for me.

Good thing it didn't, then. According to the hypothesis, I'll admit.I cut the thing about the bat and the whale. It's a bit of a retread of 'what good is half an eye' combined with the whole 'bacterial flagellum' thing. And, like I said, I'm too lazy to start Googling right now.

However, if you look at the mutations that occur now, there is almost 100% no benefit, or even problems caused, ie two headed animals, extra limbs, etc.

Not mutation and not mutation. Well, not genetic ones anyway.Also, mutations never have any benefit? Tell that to the Flavobacterium.No, wait, better yet, tell that to Africans with the sickle cell mutation. I'm sure they'll tell you they do not benefit from the added protection against malaria.

The other problem is, sayan animal does have a usefull mutation unless there's another one, theres no garuntee the mutation is passed on, and every suceeding generation is going to lead to the animals return to normalcy.

Actually, if the animal just... you know... breeds it would likely pass on the mutation. Granted, it might be recessive but it'd still be passed on.

Although this is off-topic, I felt I had to clarify: A mutation is not passed on unless it is in the cells which create our reproductive cells, or in the reproductive cells themselves. Although this is not the case in every animal, it is in most last I checked. If mutations spread like you seem to suggest, cancer would be an epidemic (cancer being a cellular mutation that reproduces at an excessive and uncontrolled rate).I am uncertain exactly how we "evolve", but I imagine our evolving has to do with minor mutations which give us advantages rather than disadvantages (as in the past, a human (or an animal, today) would be unable to survive for long enough to reproduce if its genes were faulty - and even if the creature did reproduce, its offspring might suffer the same handicap, and struggle even more). Natural Selection plays in.Can we stop repeating the same thing over and over now please? (I'm looking at you, Creationists - "God Did It" is not a valid argument for a theory)

I am uncertain exactly how we "evolve", but I imagine our evolving has to do with minor mutations which give us advantages rather than disadvantages (as in the past, a human (or an animal, today) would be unable to survive for long enough to reproduce if its genes were faulty - and even if the creature did reproduce, its offspring might suffer the same handicap, and struggle even more). Natural Selection plays in.Can we stop repeating the same thing over and over now please? (I'm looking at you, Creationists - "God Did It" is not a valid argument for a theory)

first of all, i do agree that natural selection exists. yes, Microevolutuion has been proven by science. but, Macroevolution on the other hand, Does not exist.(Humans to monkeys.) Scientists have bred flies for 30 years(900 generations of flies) and guess what? Their still FLIES.and those people that say "we share 98% of DNA with monkeys!", think about this. we share 50% of the same DNA with BANANAS.We dont just say "God did it!", We say "God did it through scietifical means."

I agree with Warjunkie. If you look at evolution that happens as slowly overtime then it makes sense. Just look at how many humans are born with a "mutation" (no offence meant) In our society it doesn´t really matter what´s wrong with you, modern medics can keep you alive for a hell of a long time. But suppose an animal is born with a different colour fur (that requires only a slight mutation of the DNA) and that colour provides better camoflage. Isn´t it more likely that it´ll survive to reproduce than it´s siblings?

Evolution was claimed a religious belief as a defense for schools teaching religion. They won, based off the argument that the creation of the universe and the process in which humans were made was the basis for a religion. As for everyone spouting facts and counter facts, its impossible to tell. Science makes constant mistakes, based off their track records, we constantly reform what we claim as fact based on new findings. Darwin himself saw cells as little more than blobs of matter when he first found them, yet we still believe his theory. As for biblical matters(as this seems the most prevalent counter argument here) Its proven to be historically accurate(on the parts we can actually check), but we have no evidence now supporting a God existing except testimony from those in the faith. The bible could be a history book with a sideplot for all we know.

I also think that this ratio of links to current species is limited because, just like today, sometimes animals just go extinct. in response to the macro/micro issue, i believe micro evolution is a part of macro evolution...we have to understand evolution as constantly occuring. as we speak, humans are evolving. however, it is at such a slow rate that its imperceivable. Race for instance is an example of micro evolution in humans, where darker "races" lived in sunnier climates and lighter "races" lived closer to the poles. this micro evolutions could possibly result in the faaaaaar distant future into species differentiation. In other words, organisms continue to adapt to their surroundings, eventually this adaptations change the organism so much from the original that it is labeled as distinctthink of this analogy: lets say u have blue paint, and u drop in some white...its now light blue, its different from the original but its still blue. but lets keep adding more white, and more white, eventually its no longer blue in the understood sense (theoretically its still blue since u cant remove color, but the eye cannot detect the blue eventually) and it becomes "white." this is how micro evolution leads to macro evolution. eventually, u just have to make a categorical call

Edited by rockin_steadily, 08 April 2008 - 04:45 AM.

For all of the people arguing against evolution... educate yourselves. I do not wish to convey years of biology education to people who aren't willing to accept it, but will give basics. This is some an excerpt from an intro to biology class i took. There are four points that aren't arguable; 1. There are differences between individuals from the same species.2. Characteristics are inherited and DNA is the basis of these characteristics. DNA can be altered through chemicals and radiation, mutations occur.3. The environment has different effects on the survival and reproductive success of individuals.4. Some genes are selected for and others are selected against by the environment.These points aren't arguable they are accepted truths and have been proven in replicable experimentation. If you accept these facts you have to accept evolution as differences in individuals result in different levels of fitness (fitness=survival+reproduction). As mutations occur some are selected for and passed on, others against. A lot of you seem to think evolution is a direct action to take advantage of something. It is not. It is a random hit or miss process which can result in strange and unproductive characteristics because they are not related to fitness and not selected for or against. And as far as people who believe in the extremely unscientific process, made up by scared christians threatened by science, "intelligent" design. I have undeniable proof against this so called "theory" the platypus!

Tsk tsk. ignoratio elenchi again."Layman" is just a name I used in reference to a subset of evolutionists. I could have used any other term; but as long as I have delineated what that term signifies in my argument, I am not being vague. So it's pointless to argue over it. Tsk tsk.

Please, you routinely change your definitions whenever it suits you. Originally you used layman as it is defined, then changed it to your current definition upon being shown how wrong you were in using it as you did. You don't get to change your definitions during a debate to salvage your position.

Tsk tsk. This time petitio principiiI hope you made a cursory search on the term a priori. It seems to me that this assertion of yours to existence is being made a priori. And if you read on the topic, you should know what that entails. If not a magnificent faithful assertion to existence, could it be faith on "the scientific" as a whole, then? Eitherway, you have only but asserted and you are in this respect on the same boat as creationists. And so yet again you've done nothing but prove my point (with an assertion...) But what an unpolished unsupported assertion! I suggest reading on the ontological proofs. Let St. Anselm and Descartes teach you a lesson on the proper way of deducing the existence of things.

You honestly think I'm using circular reasoning?! If you can't follow the existence of proof even when I give examples of Natural History museums, scientific papers, etc as evidence I think maybe you should take a step back from this as you are getting lost in a philosophical discussion of truth rather than dealing with fact. I require no "faith" to know that a Natural History museum has fossils stored within, even if I have never been to one. I require no "faith" to know that human beings use DNA, even if I have never seen it myself. The testimony of reliable sources, in this case scientists, is sufficient for this information to qualify as knowledge and be used accordingly. Considering Evolution has routinely been tested throughout its history and verified many times over by multiple independent observations and experiments I'm willing to call the source reliable. Since the theory also gives an accurate reflection of the real world the knowledge can also be considered accurate so far as we are capable of testing. So this is no assertion like you seem to think it is, it is knowledge. Most importantly it is knowledge that any person can lay a claim to if they agree with Evolutionary Theory.

On the contrary and on a more pragmatic note, a healthy dose of skepticism has always been critical to the development of science. Developing better models can be a simple matter of taking a second look at assumptions of older ones. (Assumptions that the faithful like you wouldn't bother to investigate.) Critical observation follows naturally from skepticism. In the great scientific enterprise, only seekers have something to find.

You've jumped far beyond the realm of a healthy dose of skepticism. If Evolution was something that was just now being offered as a theory then yes, test it and don't accept it until you have multiple independent accounts that all support the theory. But guess what, all that happened. Now that scientists as a whole have given Evoltion their stamp of approval by making it a Theory it gets to more or less just sit there until someone finds something so earth-shattering that it requires looking at it again. Unless you actually have such evidence I recommend you stop acting like you have, you come across more paranoid than anything else at this point.

Wow, this one is quite a deep debate. Well, why would evolution be less believable than all the religious reasons for whatever this existence is. Sorry, I'm not gonna read through this whole topic to catch up. Don't question this existence; just make it awesome!

first of all, i do agree that natural selection exists. yes, Microevolutuion has been proven by science. but, Macroevolution on the other hand, Does not exist.(Humans to monkeys.) Scientists have bred flies for 30 years(900 generations of flies) and guess what? Their still FLIES.and those people that say "we share 98% of DNA with monkeys!", think about this. we share 50% of the same DNA with BANANAS.We dont just say "God did it!", We say "God did it through scietifical means."

Can I ask you to refrain from using terms you do not know the meaning of in the discussion? Macroevolution is microevolution over a large period of time, and the concept is that a creature can evolve into another creature. Stop using scientific terms as bungee cords. They don't stretch that way.I don't think you know what DNA is either, or how significant 2 pct is. Obviously you haven't been taught anything about biology or science in general.900 generations is nowhere NEAR enough for them to evolve into anything else. It seems strange that you don't realise we haven't changed much as a species for 200 000 years. Can you count the generations? Have we evolved into a new species yet? No. It takes a lot longer than a few hundred generations for massive changes to occur.

Please, you routinely change your definitions whenever it suits you.

Ignoratio elenchi still. But since pointing out that this argument is fallacious does not seem to deter you from raising the point, this time let me address the matter by pointing out how your distracting non-argument is in fact a blatant lie. *Kudos for being fallacious and false at the same time.* While it is true that I have not clearly defined the term layman in the beginning, it had always been implied (heavily) that by layman I meant exactly someone who did not have first account of the evidence. Anyway, as evidence that your non-argument is a lie, I'll quote the first instance that I used the term:

There is no evidence for evolution as far as the layman is concerned. For him, it's just a matter of which sources to trust and place his faith on. Because in the end all that you have--it is all secondary source. Evolution to the layman is as much a story as Genesis. If you be a non-scientist, ask yourself the question: how many experiments have I performed to confirm evolution? Have I seen and touched a fossil in person? Have I ever looked through a microscope and identified chromosomes?

Even looking at all subsequent instances I used the term would show that by layman, I had always meant someone who did not have first account of evidence:

It is in the nature of layman that he must rely absolutely on expert opinion--the scientist's opinion of all evidence.

The layman is faithful to the scientist which he judged to be expert--and he is like a cultist in these terms as he believes fervently about the veracity of all these claims without "experiencing" a shred of evidence. He hasn't seen a fossil, he hasn't seen the Galapagos finches, he hasn't matched a single DNA, he hasn't seen mammal fetuses...

...the non-expert, exemplified by the captain of the Beagle, was convinced by an expert over the course of a conversation! Perhaps by "logical reasoning" but not by empirical evidence.

Tsk tsk. It seems to me you did not even bother with checking my previous posts and had instead assumed, with the faith of an assuming non-skeptic, that I had said what you imagined I said. Tsk tsk.

The testimony of reliable sources, in this case scientists, is sufficient for this information to qualify as knowledge and be used accordingly.

No, testimonies never warranted supreme confidence in any scientific theory. As I said an empirical account can be the only supreme basis of supreme confidence for all scientific theories that are based on evidence of an empirical nature. This is not a question of consensus but a question of the individual's personal account of a theory. Because my argument, if you hadn't read it yet, is about the individual evolutionist's confidence and his conduct. You are the one who is getting lost here. Scientists, instead of being faithful and unskeptical on testimonies (as you would be), would in fact bother to replicate experiments to check if they would get the same results. It seems you have missed what science was ever about.

You've jumped far beyond the realm of a healthy dose of skepticism.

No, I'm well within the healthy dose of skepticism. If you haven't heard, skepticism is a prime virtue in science. If you have read any physics textbook, you would know that they still maintain the conceptual distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass for the absurdly skeptical reason that no experiment has yet proven that they are the same constant. That physicists are still leaving some room to doubt (and make efforts to test) whether the exponent of the distance term in the Newton's law of gravitation and Coulomb's law were anything other than two. All these efforts is not being paranoid as cultists like you would frame it. It's quite simply the scientific method.

Edited by lordoftheflies, 08 April 2008 - 06:48 PM.

Sounds more like you're finding what you went looking for in the first place rather than actually looking at your writing. Hardly stellar scientific work right there.

There is no evidence for evolution as far as the layman is concerned. For him, it's just a matter of which sources to trust and place his faith on. Because in the end all that you have--it is all secondary source. Evolution to the layman is as much a story as Genesis. If you be a non-scientist, ask yourself the question: how many experiments have I performed to confirm evolution? Have I seen and touched a fossil in person? Have I ever looked through a microscope and identified chromosomes?

That is the key phrasing in that example. By including it you automatically make the layman a non-scientist, or in other words, a non-expert. I would hope you wouldn't make such a wide statement as I've yet to met a chemist or physicist who has taken the time to confirm Evolution for themselves.

It is in the nature of layman that he must rely absolutely on expert opinion--the scientist's opinion of all evidence.

Wow, you say the layman is not an expert! I don't know how I could have gotten confused.

The layman is faithful to the scientist which he judged to be expert--and he is like a cultist in these terms as he believes fervently about the veracity of all these claims without "experiencing" a shred of evidence. He hasn't seen a fossil, he hasn't seen the Galapagos finches, he hasn't matched a single DNA, he hasn't seen mammal fetuses...

Yet again saying that a scientist is an expert while the layman is not. I'm not gonna bother with your last example as that was a blatant misrepresentation of the evidence I gave you in the form of Darwin and the Captain of the Beagle.

No, testimonies never warranted supreme confidence in any scientific theory. As I said an empirical account can be the only supreme basis of supreme confidence for all scientific theories that are based on evidence of an empirical nature. This is not a question of consensus but a question of the individual's personal account of a theory. Because my argument, if you hadn't read it yet, is about the individual evolutionist's confidence and his conduct. You are the one who is getting lost here. Scientists, instead of being faithful and unskeptical on testimonies (as you would be), would in fact bother to replicate experiments to check if they would get the same results. It seems you have missed what science was ever about.

I agree that testimony (in general form) does not warrant supreme confidence, but luckily I went on to further clarify just what I meant. If you would actually learn to read everything rather than cherry pick what you want and strawman my responses maybe you could learn something. Reliable testimony counts as knowledge. Go back and look it up in your epistemology references. The accurate (and proven multiple times over) testimony of scientists (more specifically biologists) in the form of papers, fossils, genetic analyses, heck even textbooks all count as geniune knowledge. Even better since this is science after all, the entirety of this knowledge has back up in the form of empirical evidence. So, any person who accepts Evolution can have supreme confidence in the theory of Evolution, their own understanding of it and the evidence for it is of course based on individual knowledge. However, you seem to have a distinct lack in terms of understanding just what a "theory" is in the scientific lexicon, but seeing as you are arguing from a philosophical point rather than a scientific one I guess I shouldn't be surprised. By calling something a theory it acknowledges that the material in question has been routinely tested and found to have the same results every time. Things don't just become theories overnight. I suggest you go read up on that before continuing here and trying to act like the consummate scientist. I see no further point in trying to explain this to you when you simply don't want to let anything through that doesn't fit with your ideas of how things should be done so I'm through wasting my time on you.

I present an argument. A simple, clear, unambiguous argument. And instead of arguing, you proceeded to commit fallacy after fallacy, lie after lie. It is not my fault that you ended up wasting your own time with your unabashed non-arguing--exhausting your efforts over a single term that has already been defined and expounding excessively over a circular argument. In the course of this exchange, you have succeeded only to prove your gaping ignorance of argumentation, philosophy of science, and philosophy in general. I find it ironic that you would dismiss Bacon, the person who had formulated the modern scientific method, but would boldly recommend in the vaguest terms to go "read up about theory." To you, I suggest learning first how to read--a course in logic and critical thinking would benefit you greatly. Good luck to your quest for truth, I hope you embark soon! Despite all the irrationality, you had been civil (even insightful on occassion), so it made arguing with you less exasperating than it should have. *Still stands the conclusion supported by my argument and yours: the lack of an empirical account means that the layman evolutionists supreme confidence is unwarranted.*