Talk:Evolution/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

interim archive, removing off topic discussion on December 20 2006

Evolution as a Religion

Latest comment: 17 years ago35 comments5 people in discussion

1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?

I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.

Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.

You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."

Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.

Sorry this is incorrect. Evolution has been observed in fruit flies in the laboratory. And I have included a reference in the text. It has also been observed in tilipia (the so-called "Jesus fish" which the symbol on the back of your car probably represents) in the field. And in the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria in the field. And in thousands of other cases. I am sure you are not interested, but it is possible to find thousands of publications on this of all kinds.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fossils of mammals, found tens of millions of year ago, that look exactly like they do today. Through continental shifts, wild temperature changes, mass extinctions, floods, asteroids; they look exactly like they did from the beginning.

Sorry this is not correct. Show me a 100 million year old fossil of a rabbit then.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

here, and sorry, it's only 33 million years old. http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=311&data=rabbit&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramasonuc

Every time something like this has been examined by serious scientists it turns out to be a load of nonsense. Over and over and over. It is amusing the first 5 times. But then it gets very very old. No one wants to dig through your fallacious nonsense because you will not listen to reason anyway. Even if it was proven to you that you were completely wrong on every issue, you would not listen. That is what faith is about. The very definition of faith. Look if your faith is so strong, why do you need proof and lies? Just believe. Just don't bother anyone else and believe whatever you like. Just do not shove it on anyone else. I would like to see this sort of thing made illegal. So you could meet a nice guy named Bubba. --Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

200 million year old lobsters look like 2 year old lobsters

Says who?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.creation-museum.net/fossils/fosil.php?Id=225&data=C&page=0&limit=30&tur=aramatur

There is no mention that gas does not clump in a vacuum, proving the big bang could not have happened, using the very laws of physics that you hold so close.

Cosmology is only indirectly related to natural selection. The fact that you equate the two screams "I am really ignorant and I am glad to demonstrate it to the world". It is like saying "Cheese does not come from cows because man has walked on the moon. So there." How does one answer this kind of question? Do you even know what the big bang is? You know that time itself was created in the "big bang"? Try to learn a little something about it before you spew nonsense and embarass yourself further--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice personal attack.

Follow me.

Gas doesn't clump in a vacuum; therefore Stars were not created in the vacuum of space as a result of the big bang.

So you do not know much about forces and physics and how the big bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. That is not a surprise unfortunately.--Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention that no one has ever observed a blue shift.

Again, says who? Of course they have. But they are rare, for obvious reasons if you are able to do the reasoning--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention that it's mathematically improbable for evolution to have occurred. No mention that human DNA is so incredibly complex it could not just have come in to being through pure chance.

It is not pure chance. Who ever told you that evolution was pure chance?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention that not enough time has passed for cells to randomly have created the diverse life on earth.

Again who said it was random? This is just plain false--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

YOu say it was random. You say that the universe and all its contents have come about by just pure happenstance.

I do not. What do you know of what I believe, let alone science? Nothing.--Filll 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no explanation of the Cambrian Explosion - only 1 phylum before, yet 13! afterward.

You insist that evolution always proceed at the same rate? And why is that? Have you never heard of punctuated equilibria?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and ignore my point.

"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

Miles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Again this is more quote mining. I know, or knew, David Raup. Raup believed in Evolution. He did not write creationist diatribes. But the Theory of Evolution is not static, like creationism is. That is the difference. You mistake change of the theory for weakness of science. In fact, that is its strength. And that is why evolution and science are not religions.--Filll 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is a religion.

Evolution has no supernatural in it. Religion has the supernatural in it. Therefore, evolution is not a religion. Religion is a religion. Science is based on evidence. Evolution is baseed on evidence, so it is a science, not a religion. Creation accounts from religions on the other hand, are not able to account for the evidence. In the words of Ashley Montague, 'Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.' Simple enough for you?--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that all of us instantaneously springing out of nothing for no reason sounds just a supernatural as us being created. But I bet you scientist types will find that first cause any day now.

You clearly do not understand evolution if you think that evolution includes abiogenesis, or that abiogenesis means "springing up out of nothing". This article is not about abiogenesis however, it is about evolution. So educate yourself.--Filll 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:12.145.177.110 (talk • contribs).

Hi User:12.145.177.110. You might like to read the notice at the very top of this page before trying to insert any of the above into the article. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

hi back to ya! I didn't try to anything to the article, only the discussion page, which I guess isn't for "discussion" unless it's for the status quo.

--12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is for discussions of improvements to the article. Not at all about the status quo. If you are following the discussion at all, there are huge efforts underway to improve the article and make it clearer. Definitely not about the status quo. And if you read the material above, you will see that most of what you have said has been said over and over and over until we are bored to tears with it.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to answer this for you but it has all been answered repeatedly. None of these are new. They were soundly dismissed decades ago. Sorry.--Filll 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You say they were all soundly dismissed decades ago, but don't mention who or really when. I suspect you are refering to yet more fundamentalist evolutionists.

There is no such thing as a fundamentalist evolutionist. There is however a fundamentalist creationist. Learn the difference.--20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The laws of physics say prove gas molecules won't bond in a vacuum. This is a proven fact. Yet somehow, stars formed in the vacuum of space. No bonding, no stars. No stars, no life on earth.

This has nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. Sorry. Try to educate yourself first.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A 150 million year old needlefish fossil is found. It looks exactly like the needlefish today. There are tens of thousands of species where the fossil record indicates the exact opposite of what Darwin says. None of this is represented. Hundreds of thousands of fossils. Not one transitional fossil. Ever. That alone should be included.

This is incorrect.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A mathematician calculated that the probability of life creating itself is 10¹⁰⁰⁰. In scientific terms, anything greater than 10⁵⁰is impossible.

This sort of thing is done by the people at the Discovery institute. And speaking as a mathematician, most of what I have seen from the Discovery institute is pure nonsense. Garbage, frankly.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Even more, the rules of this website say:

"NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view." and "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.'

If you would read the article, there is a huge amount of material devoted to the viewpoint you espouse. I am trying to get them to reduce it or put it in another article, although we already have one on the creationism controversy.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's so amusing that secularists brag about having an open mind while quashing evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs...

Unfortunately you are ill informed in your arguments so they look silly.--Filll 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are incredibly naive. There are plenty of examples of evolution, speciation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. If you would only seek you will find. I did. If you don't believe in evolution then you don't believe in modern medicine either. Evolution principals are used as a basis for strategies in grants related to agriculture, medicine and basic research. Most of the molecular cures coming down the pike can thank evolution for a significant role-uniformity in using animal models, molecular analysis, etc.GetAgrippa 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

...like this guy...who is saying a bird or insect doesn't change its colors over millions of years? No one.

What exactly is your point here? I cannot see your point, but maybe that is because you are wearing a hat. --Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says we sprung up out of the ground all of the sudden with no "cause"?

Abiogenesis is not the Theory of evolution. Learn your terms before you make a fool of yourself further.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says we've evolved from monkeys, (even though there are still monkeys)?

No one says people evolved from monkeys. Learn your science.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who says there has been enough time for us to evolve to the state we are today?

I do not know the state of evolutionary simulations, but we have the data to look at, not simulations. Data always trump simulations.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mutations always produce a weaker offspring (always), yet we're meant to believe that some mutants are actually stronger than their parents?

Prove it.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't confusion your religion of evolution with true science that looks at all facts, regardless of what your personal beliefs are.

You have amply proved you have complete ignorance of science. Sorry.--Filll 20:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--12.145.184.6 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not related to monkeys. Evolution can occur in days, decades, or millenia. A mutation in 80% of the worlds population of Drosophila melanogaster produced insecticide resistance. This is from a transposon altering cytochrome P450. The transposon entered the population some 60-80,000 years ago and only jumped and gained reproductive success the last 50-250 years. It is a molecular spandrel in that the change preceded the need-an exaptation. Science and faith are different domains. Most people of faith can make that distinction, so you don't speak for all peoples of faith. GetAgrippa 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95

I suspect this is just standard quote mining. Let me ask: How sure are you of those quotes you have copied and pasted from some creationist web site? Would you stake your liberty on them? Your life? Would you testify about their accuracy under oath? How about if you were threatened with jail? In a cell with a very friendly cell mate who would make you his "woman"? You ready to go it? You know more than 99.9% of all scientists with scientific backgrounds in biology, at the professional level, believe in evolution? More than 99.84% of almost 480,000 earth scientists and biologists surveyed? That is essentially 100% if you account for noise and survey errors etc. How sure are you that those people in reliable peer-reviewed publications were able to publish material that is contravened by all the data we have? Would you stake your life on it? --Filll 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Lest we forget! David D. (Talk) 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT - If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the theory of evolution please do so at talk.origins or Wikireason. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

speciation

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

"Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." The article describes evolution as natural or artificle selection leading sometimes leading to the creation of a new species. Is this strictly correct? Seems a bit misleading. I thought evolution and evolutionary origin of species was the same thing.

In any event, the quote "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones" should have a reference, if possible, to a new species being created in the lab.

Why the lab, better examples of speciation in nature. Evolution is not synonymous with speciation. Evolution can lead to speciation, but evolution occurs without it. Speciation is a by product of evolution. Plenty of examples of speciation in plants, insects, birds, and mammals in nature. GetAgrippa 18:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The stickleback fish has become a supermodel of evolution studies. Here is a good review by Elizabeth Pennisi:Science 18 June 2004:Vol. 304. no. 5678, p. 1736 Changing a Fish's Bony Armor in the Wink of a Gene. More recent articles determine that shifts in ectodysplasin alleles correlate with speciation within decades time frame. There is also a good Science paper on genomic change and speciation in Siberian warblers as I recollect, and a large number of plant examples. The review article has some dramatic images demonstrating the changes in spines and lateral plates with speciation in marine and freshwater fish populations. I always thought the images of lateral plate loss was dramatic evidence of evolution.

Here is a recent plant paper from Science:Science 29 August 2003: Vol. 301. no. 5637, pp. 1211 - 1216 Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization Loren H. Rieseberg,1* Olivier Raymond,2 David M. Rosenthal,3 Zhao Lai,1 Kevin Livingstone,1 Takuya Nakazato,1 Jennifer L. Durphy,1 Andrea E. Schwarzbach,4 Lisa A. Donovan,3 Christian Lexer1. Here is a Science bird paper that is interesting:Science 21 January 2005:Vol. 307. no. 5708, pp. 414 - 416 Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species Darren E. Irwin,1* Staffan Bensch,2 Jessica H. Irwin,1 Trevor D. Price3. Here is another Science review paper by Pennisi. Science 10 March 2006:Vol. 311. no. 5766, pp. 1372 - 137.Speciation Standing in Place.Elizabeth Pennisi. Here is heritable phenotypic plasticity and evolution in birds Science 14 October 2005:Vol. 310. no. 5746, pp. 304 - 306. Selection on Heritable Phenotypic Plasticity in a Wild Bird Population Daniel H. Nussey,1,2* Erik Postma,1 Phillip Gienapp,1 Marcel E. Visser1 These are just some Science article the tip of a very large iceberg.GetAgrippa 19:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific theory, existence of experiment that could prove theory incorrect

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Darwin's theory is not the only so-called scientific theory to not meet the following criteria, but I think this point needs to be addressed.

1. A scientific theory does have to be consistent with observable facts. Evolution is consistent with observable facts. 2. A scientific theory does have to have a conceivable experiment that would *prove* it wrong. For example, Ohm's law states that V=I*R, where V is voltage, I is current, and R is resistance. This is a scientific theory that is not only consistent with observable facts, but has an experiment that would prove that it were wrong. For example, if you measure 20 volts across a 1 ohm resistor that that has 1 Amp of current running through it, this would prove that Ohms Law is wrong. Another example is the kinetic energy of an object in motion at speeds well below the speed of light. One theory might be that the kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Another hypothesis might be that the kinetic energy is m*v. Both hypotheses are scientific, in the sense that each has a conceivable experiment that would prove either one of them wrong. And, of course, one of them is actually correct, which is why it is part of Newton’s laws (or theories, if you prefer).

Does any such experiment exist for the theory of evolution, specifically, with regard to the origin of new species? That is, an experiment that if it failed would prove evolution to be wrong? And if such an experiment does not exist (an experiment that would prove it were wrong if it were), is the Darwinian theory on the origin of species really just a tautologous pseudo-scientific story? Or do Darwiniacs claim that the existence of an experiment that would show a scientific theory to be false is all well in good for the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and so-on, but such an experiment is not required of scientific theories from the softer sciences?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:199.62.0.252 |199.62.0.252 ]] ([[User talk:199.62.0.252 |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/199.62.0.252 |contribs]]) 19:14, 20 December 2006

Please log in and sign your posts.--Filll 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is preferable for all scientific theories to be "falsifiable" for them to be taken seriously. There are theories in physics which we do not know how to test yet, or can test only very indirectly, and they are not taken nearly as seriously. In the case of creationism, it is true by fiat, so there is no test. No matter what evidence is presented, there is always an escape valve like "God made the earth appear old when it really isnt to test man's faith" or "The Devil makes the earth appear old when it really isnt to tempt men away from God" or "The fossils were put there by the Devil for wicked purposes to support evolution" or "God is just testing our faith with the 3 degree background radiation and the red shifts" and on and on and on. You can never pin down creationism because at its root is a core belief that the facts will be bent to accommodate no matter what. The same is not true of a theory in science. What we call The Theory of Evolution has been through numerous changes over the years to accommodate the data better, just as the Theory of Gravity has. In science, the theory changes to fit the data. In creationism, the data are explained away to fit the hypothesis (not calling it a theory because it is so poorly supported by the data).--Filll 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A famous example of a test for evolution is, show me a fossil of a rabbit that is 100s of millions of years old. If that is true, it is all over. Biology is a hard science like physics and chemistry. A soft science is something like anthropology or sociology.--Filll 20:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I will also point out that your examples of "Ohm's law" and "Kinetic Energy" are not that reasonable. That expression for Kinetic Energy is only approximately true with bodies of a certain size at low velocity etc. That expression for Ohm's law is only approximately true for certain materials for certain ranges of the relevant variables.--Filll 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution as a Religion

Latest comment: 17 years ago36 comments6 people in discussion

1. Titanium Dragon - Quit deleting scientific discussion that differs from your view. 2. Quit biting the newcomers as this page says 3. How can you archive something that was up for a matter of hours?

4. This thread was deleted again, called "trolling". What are you mods afraid of? 5. Filli says "...leaving the door open to creationist nonsense", and you claim that this site and its admins are NOT biased? You must allow all points of view that have basis in fact, regardless of what you think.

I am restoring this thread for the second time.

I have presented several factual arguments, and they were quashed almost instantaneously. This is not your own personal website to cover up the truth.

Evolution is not a fact. And before you go delete-happy again, answer any one of these points.

You say "this article references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth."

Evolution has never been observed. Ever. Not one single transitory fossil, out of hundreds of thousands found from hundred of millions of years ago, not one has ever been found. Ever. Not one. No proof.

Sorry this is incorrect. Evolution has been observed in fruit flies in the laboratory. And I have included a reference in the text. It has also been observed in tilipia (the so-called "Jesus fish" Swhich the symbol on the back of your car probably represents) in the field. And in the emergence of nylon-eating bacteria in the field. And in thousands of other cases. I am sure you are not interested, but it is possible to find thousands of publications on this of all kinds.--Filll 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)