Makes No Difference, (Discuss whatever you want).

[Aussie Thoughts]

So my query is
A. Do you all agree or disagree with my logic.
B. If yes, what can be done about it. Can anything be done about it?

You've got the gist of it mate. This thread was started out of frustration over all the bickering taking place on that other thread. I mean, no one was willing to stop. Not even after their point was made. They just kept going on and on, arguing the same thing over and over. I kept saying to myself, "What difference does it make?"

So, I decided to ask. Only, I wanted people to give me an answer without feeling the need to slap anyone else's position in the face or to prove someone else wrong. So no, this thread never did go that far off topic, but say for a couple or three posts, it seemed to be headed in the same direction as that other thread. So I decided, rather than trying to steer the ship on a particular course, I'd let go of the wheel altogether and set her adrift. Thus far I'm cautiously optimistic over the results.

I doubt seriously the question of where we came from will ever be fully answered. At least not to everyone's satisfaction. I just wish we could be secure enough in our own beliefs not to feel the need to attack others over theirs.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I don't think the scientists who disagree with evolution have rejected fundamental scientific principles. They've just drawn different conclusions from them which tends to disagree with the general consensus. That's the part I find interesting. Of course, as I've said, I don't completely agree with either side.

I wasn't talking about the scientists but us laymen. Outliers in a field is a natural and healthy state, and I don't have the background to check their data, I leave that to specialists. Their will also always be research done on specifics within the theory, but there is a consensus on theory as a whole.

 

[Thomas]

People these days tend to use a counter method for defending their position. Instead of defending their position, they attack the opposing position.

I think there's a number of answers, depending on the nature of the dialogue.

I think in the first place it's often because people are defending a subjective position. It may seem at first glance that such is the default, but I don't think it is. In my dialogues here, for example, I'm not defending my faith as such, I'm defending the Catholic Church, against or about which erroneous statements are made. The issue with Omega, for example, was his declaration that the Catholic theological position is Arminianism, which is so obviously an anachronism ... but when you're up against someone who is embedded in a position without an objective view of that position, then the mode is attack, simply because they don't understand their position enough to defend it.

We had the same thing with the definition of 'literal', where it ends up with someone insisting that literal means something it doesn't, to win the argument.

Same with the videos NJ posted above. Lots of comment, but no-one is actually looking at the thesis being put forward – whether or not it's actually saying something or not – the discussion immediately becomes personal, about my rights, freedoms, etc. That's why I posted a critique of the commentary.

Often in subjective debate I can agree with all sides — ACOT is right, one or more opinions on the periphery does not alter the consensus. NJ is right, it's always interesting to hear with the alternatives are ... but the alternatives don't effect the consensus, which holds the ground. We all know examples of when the alternative was right, but more often than not, in all probability, it's wrong.

And it is even worse than that because in today's world to 'defend' is considered weak, where to 'attack' is considered strong. Look at the god awful mess our politics are to see it writ on a grand scale.

In politics we factor in 'fear'. In the UK it's fear because there is an increase in foreign workers here, but a decrease in the common wealth, we're sliding into impoverishment. So the people want strong leadership, and that means aggressive leadership.

Same, it seems to me, with Trump. He's strong. He makes all the right strong man noises.

So my query is
A. Do you all agree or disagree with my logic.

Agree.

B. If yes, what can be done about it.

Stick to objectives and evidence, rather than subjective opinions.

Can anything be done about it?

Not here, I don't think. Generally, we're not that kind of audience. IO is not about objective truth.

As I am one of the principle triggers to Aussie's initial outcry, might I point out that Ahanu and I have had reasonable and interesting dialogues touching on the Christianity-Islam debate ... it can be done, but then we're both defending an objective position ...

 

[Thomas]

Second of the three videos at #25.

The guy is saying less now, and more nebulously.

He's talked about carbon dating, but tries to undo the science on the basis that the sky was a canopy of water (as said in Genesis) and therefore carbon interaction would be different before the flood?

The general trend of his argument seems to be that people got it wrong in the past, but science uncovers more and explains their errors ... but somehow now, science has got it wrong and the Bible evidences their errors?

If the interviewer wasn't so patently biased, he would have been challenged.

So, no science here, really, unless I've missed it.

 

[wil]

Here as said above is the crux to me....does evolution as known today have all the answers? No...but when they find new information and prove it do they modify their approach? Yes.

But as to attacking or proving creation model wrong we've done that...here is what we know isn't right.

We know the universe was not crested in seven days, we know man was not formed of mud and woman from his rib, we know man did not walk with the dinosaurs and the universe and our earth are well over 10,000 years old. We know there weren't waters protecting the earth and then it rained down on us... We know that penguins, lemurs, duck billed platypuses, and kangaroos did not hop to Noah to ride on a boat and then swim back home...this and a lot more aren't only not proven, but easily disproved.

We know this is not science and not true...maybe some folks don't know but their is a gap in their education.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I wasn't talking about the scientists but us laymen. Outliers in a field is a natural and healthy state, and I don't have the background to check their data, I leave that to specialists. Their will also always be research done on specifics within the theory, but there is a consensus on theory as a whole.

Ok, fair enough.

Speaking generally, is there a consensus among those who reject evolution to explain biodiversity?

I'm not sure about biodiversity, but from just casually surfing the web and YouTube for different scientific perspectives, seems like the thing most often brought up by opponents of evolution is the lack of fossil evidence for transitional creatures. What they're saying is, if current dating methods are accurate and being used to support the theory of evolution rather than the theory of evolution being used to support the dating methods, and if life did in fact evolve over millions of years as the theory asserts, than there would have been a staggering number of transitional creatures. Yet, there is insufficient fossil evidence to support this. As one might expect, proponents of evolution refute this claim. They say evidence of transitional creatures does exist and point to a number of fossilized remains as proof. Opponents of course counter by saying these fossilized remains only show minor variations within particular species. Not a full transitional step. Keep in mind this all comes from actual scientist and scholars. Biochemists, microbiologists, archaeologist, grad students and the like. Not some bible thumper in the street.

Any thoughts?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

You are making two statements there.
1. That fossils are used to justify dating methods.
2. That fossils are used to justify that evolution is a genuine process.

The first one is completely wrong; I'm not sure where you even got that idea from. Fossils have nothing to do with dating time scales. It is the sediments where in they are found that is subject to carbon 14 dating and thus setting a time scale from when that fossil once lived. Not that there isn't some dating of time scale with fossils, rather that they are very poor in the radioactive isotopes needed to get a good number. The rocks are used most of the time as they do have a much greater degree of isotopes within their structure.

The second statement can be considered partially true and partly false. The false first. A 'staggering number of transitional [fossils] is not possible because there just are not a staggering number of fossils in the first place. The chances for a fossil to form are chancy at best. Most ancient creatures simply ended up dead and decomposed, or eaten. Very specific special circumstances, that are completely random in occurrence, are what is needed for an animal to die in the right place and under the right conditions to leave a fossil behind to be petrified.

Plus only a tiny percentage of creatures on the planet have a body structure that is conducive to creating a fossil in the first place. Any form of life without a certain mass of bony structure will not leave enough after death to fossilize. And although life is believed to have started on this planet some 4 billion years ago, they were all soft bodied creatures. Nothing to fossilize. It is only since the Cambrian, a mere 500 million years ago that some creatures began to have enough of a solid body to leave behind remains.

So it is not so much the point that the fossil record is so sparse, but rather a wonder that we have been able to find as much as we have. Cause that is the third leg of this triad. There are probably millions more fossils out there to be found, but we don't know where to look for them. Fossil discoveries are mostly random occurrences based on luck and some educated guessing than anything else.

I said the second statement might be considered partially true as well. And that is because the fossil record is so enormously incomplete, a case could be made that there are not enough fossils that have been found to justify calling evolution a fact. I would not make that claim myself as I believe that looking long term, we have enough, barely, to see the patterns over huge lengths of geological time. Still I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the lack of a substantial fossil record could be considered a critical argument against the idea that what we have is enough to prove evolution.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

You are making two statements there.

Ok, let me just say that I'm not making any statements of my own here. I'm just relaying the gist of different things I've read from pro and anti evolution scientists. The dating thing could have been expressed better I suppose. I just meant assuming the dating process is correct since some scientists have suggested otherwise. That's irrelevant to the main point though.

I believe that looking long term, we have enough, barely, to see the patterns over huge lengths of geological time. Still I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the lack of a substantial fossil record could be considered a critical argument against the idea that what we have is enough to prove evolution.

I think this is the main point many opponents of evolution are trying to make. Basically, that there isn't enough information to fully support the theory and that much of it is still largely based on speculation.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Basically, that there isn't enough information to fully support the theory and that much of it is still largely based on speculation.

And up till around 10 years ago that would have been a reasonable argument. Everything has now changed however and proof, undeniable proof, for evolution now comes from a different source than fossils. That's because about 10 years ago we mapped the human genome, the entire DNA genome that makes us humans.

We then went on the map the DNA genomes of other creatures, like chimpanzees and fruit flies. Now most everyone knows that chimps and humans share 99%+ of the same DNA structure.

But fruit flies? It turns out that we can manipulate fruit fly DNA to make strange adaptations, like legs on the head instead of antenna. And here is the kicker. When we put similar types of human DNA in place of the fly's DNA it created the same exact adaptations. Humans and fruit flies share so much of the essential DNA that we can mix each other's up. And create viable living creatures.

That my friend puts the golden spike into the validation of evolution. For the only way humans and bugs could have such similar DNA is because all of life evolved from common ancient ancestors. Here is an excellent article that goes into all this more fully.

http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/

 

[Namaste Jesus]

That my friend puts the golden spike into the validation of evolution. For the only way humans and bugs could have such similar DNA is because all of life evolved from common ancient ancestors.

I'm not sure I would quite agree with that. I mean, I do believe some sort of evolutionary process took place, but is deliberate DNA manipulation really an indication of something that would have or could have occurred on it's own? Seems a stronger argument for intelligent design to me. The fact that we all have similar DNA stands to reason. After all, we're all made of the same stuff. I'm just not sure that equates to evolving from a common organism.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

For the only way humans and bugs could have such similar DNA is because all of life evolved from common ancient ancestors

Now that is a daring statement! You wouldn't dare myself.

 

[Thomas]

The chances for a fossil to form are chancy at best.

My son-in-law and I had a long conversation about this. He'd seen a science programme which pointed out just how rare fossils are, and how rare the circumstances under which fossils can form.

Then you look at discoveries were a small fragment of bone upsets the 'human story' applecart ... we thought life began around IndoChina, then it moved to Africa; recent finds have pushed dates back millennia ...

In South London we have a park that, in the 60s, was populated by life-size sculptures of dinosaurs that roamed South London aeons ago. Today they are a laughing stock. In the decades since, we have learned so much more. I think not one of them is accurate, but they were all 'the real deal' in their day... and you wonder, are the latest models so accurate?

And yet ...

Despite breakthrough discoveries and their understandings, the basic premise stays the same, we simply have to move the variables, based on the latest data. So fossil finds are staggeringly rare, but no new find throws a spanner in the evolution machine, and for me this is telling, rather they require revised dates, places, etc., and open the way for further research.

But it cannot be said that the evidence we have disputes evolution, and the lack of evidence is not evidence of anything, so those who argue the lack of transitional species are really barking up the wrong tree ...

And surely, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, H. gautengensis, H. ergaster, H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. naledi, H. tsaichangensis, H. rhodesiensis, H. sapiens, are all transitional in the sense that they are indicators of the development of species ... we're not the end result as such, we're just the most recent addition to the chain.

On the other hand, species who reach a kind of ecological/environmental 'ideal' or 'dead end' show no changes over many, many millennia. Who are they, crocs, I think, sharks, roaches, silverfish... their non-evolving is also part of the evolutionary argument.

And, as DA pointed out, the unravelling of the genome should have knocked evolution into touch if it was wrong, but the product is the contrary. And extraordinary, staggering, inspirational ... the capacity for cellular organisms to engage and combine and collaborate with each other and produce the most awesome life-forms.

In my view its quite likely that times/dates/places will change again and again, but the song remains the same, and that is one of the most telling arguments in support of evolution.

The contrary theory, that there is an Intelligent Designer mirco-managing and cooking up new species which occur spontaneously looks increasingly unlikely ...

... and if you start investigating the idea of an ID with the same critical application you apply to evolution, then the ID argument, it seems to me, starts to come apart... a Designer maybe, but the intelligence is questionable. Why on earth did he dream up the Black Death, or Leprosy, or Ebola? What does that say about the Designer?

 

[wil]

I recall as a kid being told in church that god put the fossils there to test our faith...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Now that is a daring statement!

Technically I am but repeating the author of the article. DNA proves evolution. Since I agree with the logic and the science I am willing to own that statement.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I'm not sure I would quite agree with that. I mean, I do believe some sort of evolutionary process took place, but is deliberate DNA manipulation really an indication of something that would have or could have occurred on it's own? Seems a stronger argument for intelligent design to me.

Well as to the first, I never expected to convince you. You missed an important point though. It's isn't the deliberate human DNA manipulation that is the point. The point is that human DNA can replace DNA of another creature very, very different from us. And it still achieves the same process result.

After all, we're all made of the same stuff. I'm just not sure that equates to evolving from a common organism.

Again I think you are missing the point. I'm not sure you are getting the gist of how DNA works. We are all made of strands of DNA yes. It is more to it than that. There is no reason bug DNA and human DNA should be compatible. The evolution of the bug and the human are radically different and on hugely different time scales. The only reason they could be interchangeable is if we both had a common ancestor with a DNA structure that it passed down to every living thing on the planet. That 'organic soup' that is so popular as a phrase these days.

From a position of science the case is closed. As much as any idea in science can be closed. Is there some discovery down the road that will turn the evolution apple cart on its head? Never say never, right? Until and if that ever happens though, overwhelming consensus is that evolution is how every living evolved.

One final comment. Whether or not one believes all this, the bottom line is that fossil availability is no longer relevant to proving evolution. We have moved past bones to much deeper, chemical proof to prove the point. Anyone who is still arguing the lack of fossil remains as proof evolution can not be considered fact is arguing from an outdated mode of thinking.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Finally a shout out to Thomas' post. The man always makes statements so much more elegantly than I can. In this particular case I agree with his comments; I stand by my complement even in those statements where we are in complete disagreement. I am envious.

 

[wil]

Finally a shout out to Thomas' post. The man always makes statements so much more elegantly than I can. In this particular case I agree with his comments; I stand by my complement even in those statements where we are in complete disagreement. I am envious.

yeah....it pisses me off too.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Thus far I'm cautiously optimistic over the results.

I take that back.....

 

[wil]

I take that back.....

Discussion is informative, factual, sorry it isn't going your way.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]