An Evolution Primer for Creationists

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What an asinine proposition. It's not only utterly false it's just a game of raise the bar. First you say there's no evidence of transitional species, when that evidence has been presented to you you lamely state "There's never been a transformation from genus to genus and thus evolution cannot be a fact." How copletely rediculous. You've just completely ignored the compelling evidence I've listed for macroevolution to make an illogical and irrational argument that just simply doesn't hold water. Even if I could produce evidence of transformation from genus to genus (which no one can) you would then ask me to provide evidence of transformation from family to family or order to order and go right on playing taxanomical "raise the bar". It's a completely bogus argument dude.

First let's be clear what we are talking about. In taxonomy for a genus to transform into another genus you are talking about an entire group of species transforming into an entirely new group of species. For example, that would mean all the canines of the world, dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, etc suddenly transforming, not just some but ALL OF THEM, into a completely new group of species such as felines (cats, lions, tigers, lynx, leapords, etc.). You are correct this has never been observed, and this is where your argument is just sooooooo lame. This does not happen because evolutionary theory predicts that this would and could not happen. Not even by such rapid evolutionary mechanisms as punctuated equilibrium. In fact, the gradualistic mechanism of evolution predict that change would occur at the population level (species and subspecies) not the genus level and that is what in fact does occur. So your argument that transformation from genus to genus has never been observed is evidence against macroevolution is completely erroneous because it is in fact evidence for evolution. It shows to me that you don't really understand the concept of biological taxonomy (as well as evolution and a scientific theory).

Dixie I also need to go back to basics to demonstrate my point on the fallacy of your argument.

The modern definition of evolutionary theory is "The change in allele (a genetic expresion) frequency within a species/subspeices (the term population is often used as a synonym for species and/or sub species) over time.
(note - a subspecies is what lay person would call "a breed". For example. A dog is the species canine familiarous. But it might be of the subspecies known as "labrador retriever" or "German Shepard").

Thus evolutionary theory predicts that the mechanisms of evolutionary change work at the species and subspecies level. Not at higher taxonomical levels. Evolutionary theory does not predict direct evolutionary transformations at the genus level of taxonomy to another. In fact, this is one of the methods by which one can falisfy, in principle, evolutionary theory. If you can show me evidence of transformation of one genus of species to another genus of species then you would have succesfully falsified evolutionary theory. As you have correctly stated, this has never been observed.

So you have actuallly provided more evidence for macroevolution with your observation that transformations from one genus to another has never been observed.

Look, you can try to confuse and confound the issue with big words and scientific terminology all you like, this is really not that complicated. If you are not split from reality, you will agree, we have a world full of various species from assorted families of living forms, known as genus. There are literally billions of genus on the planet now. This represents about 5% of the genus' which have at one time or another existed on the face of this planet. Logic dictates, these genus emerged from somewhere, and your argument is, they all emerged from a single living organism. By your own admission, and by the evidence of science, that is impossible. One genus doesn't evolve into another, that isn't how evolution works. So how do you explain billions of them?

Evolution is a theory of how specific genus' may have adapted and changed in time, we think, because of the environment and as a means of survival. I can accept that theory, and I haven't disputed it. However, it doesn't explain billions of various genus' across thousands of various life platforms and systems. Some of which are totally interdependent on each other for existence. You attempt to explain this with "macroevolution" but the theory itself, is not proven, and has no basis in scientific support, as you've admitted, genus' don't change to other genus'. Without something to explain and justify, how a plant (for example) became a cold-blooded organism, or a reptile (for example) became a warm-blooded mammal, you can't really offer any theory for it, so it is unexplained. You must make these connections in order to get from a single cell organism to billions of genus, that is pure unadulterated logic. Nothing in Evolution theory explains this, and you haven't explained this! You keep claiming you've presented evidence that macroevolution is a fact, but then you jump back and claim that macroevolution can't explain genus-to-genus evolutions, when it's obvious this had to happen at some point, to get from 1 to 1,000,000,000! It's real simple logic... 1+0E is never going to equal 1 Billion! So, either we are all part of the same genus, which has never transformed into another genus, or you don't have an explanation!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Look, you can try to confuse and confound the issue with big words and scientific terminology all you like, this is really not that complicated. If you are not split from reality, you will agree, we have a world full of various species from assorted families of living forms, known as genus. There are literally billions of genus on the planet now. This represents about 5% of the genus' which have at one time or another existed on the face of this planet. Logic dictates, these genus emerged from somewhere, and your argument is, they all emerged from a single living organism. By your own admission, and by the evidence of science, that is impossible. One genus doesn't evolve into another, that isn't how evolution works. So how do you explain billions of them?

Evolution is a theory of how specific genus' may have adapted and changed in time, we think, because of the environment and as a means of survival. I can accept that theory, and I haven't disputed it. However, it doesn't explain billions of various genus' across thousands of various life platforms and systems. Some of which are totally interdependent on each other for existence. You attempt to explain this with "macroevolution" but the theory itself, is not proven, and has no basis in scientific support, as you've admitted, genus' don't change to other genus'. Without something to explain and justify, how a plant (for example) became a cold-blooded organism, or a reptile (for example) became a warm-blooded mammal, you can't really offer any theory for it, so it is unexplained. You must make these connections in order to get from a single cell organism to billions of genus, that is pure unadulterated logic. Nothing in Evolution theory explains this, and you haven't explained this! You keep claiming you've presented evidence that macroevolution is a fact, but then you jump back and claim that macroevolution can't explain genus-to-genus evolutions, when it's obvious this had to happen at some point, to get from 1 to 1,000,000,000! It's real simple logic... 1+0E is never going to equal 1 Billion! So, either we are all part of the same genus, which has never transformed into another genus, or you don't have an explanation!

Before you go any further, please explain to me, what are the diffent levels of biological taxonomy? From what I'm reading here it doesn't appear you know what these are.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Before you go any further, please explain to me, what are the diffent levels of biological taxonomy? From what I'm reading here it doesn't appear you know what these are.

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

There are slightly different ranks for zoology and for botany.

Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, it is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.

Since the 1960s a trend called cladistic taxonomy (or cladistics or cladism) has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary tree. If a taxon includes all the descendants of some ancestral form, it is called monophyletic, as opposed to paraphyletic. Other groups are called polyphyletic.

A new formal code of nomenclature, the PhyloCode, to be renamed "International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature" (ICPN), is currently under development, intended to deal with clades, which do not have set ranks, unlike conventional Linnaean taxonomy. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist.

Domains are a relatively new grouping. The three-domain system was first invented in 1990, but not generally accepted until later. Now, the majority of biologists accept the domain system, but a large minority use the five-kingdom method. One main characteristic of the three-domain method is the separation of Archaea and Bacteria, previously grouped into the single kingdom Bacteria (a kingdom also sometimes called Monera). Consequently, the three domains of life are conceptualized as Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota (comprising the nuclei-bearing eukaryotes).[3] A small minority of scientists add Archaea as a sixth kingdom, but do not accept the domain method.

Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who has published extensively on the classification of protists, has recently proposed that the Neomura, the clade which groups together the Archaea and Eukarya, would have evolved from Bacteria, more precisely from Actinobacteria.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, here we have it... this is all relatively new science, new definitions, new theories... and highly subjective and controversial at this time. Nothing is "established fact among all biologists" ....nothing is "proven fact" as you have tried to suggest. It is THEORY! In most cases, highly contested theory!

The simple fact remains, we have billions of life forms, and to get from a single cell organism to billions of life forms, requires some level of cross-genus evolution, at some point, some genus had to become something else! Not only did this have to happen once, but hundreds of thousands of times, to produce the billions of life forms found on the planet. Inner-genus evolution doesn't explain or rationalize it, that only accounts for evolution within a particular family. So, either the single-cell organism was "intelligent" and just knew to grow and evolve into numerous various life forms, or something else happened. What? We simply don't know.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There are 8 main taxonomic ranks: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.

There are slightly different ranks for zoology and for botany.

Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, it is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.

Since the 1960s a trend called cladistic taxonomy (or cladistics or cladism) has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary tree. If a taxon includes all the descendants of some ancestral form, it is called monophyletic, as opposed to paraphyletic. Other groups are called polyphyletic.

A new formal code of nomenclature, the PhyloCode, to be renamed "International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature" (ICPN), is currently under development, intended to deal with clades, which do not have set ranks, unlike conventional Linnaean taxonomy. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist.

Domains are a relatively new grouping. The three-domain system was first invented in 1990, but not generally accepted until later. Now, the majority of biologists accept the domain system, but a large minority use the five-kingdom method. One main characteristic of the three-domain method is the separation of Archaea and Bacteria, previously grouped into the single kingdom Bacteria (a kingdom also sometimes called Monera). Consequently, the three domains of life are conceptualized as Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota (comprising the nuclei-bearing eukaryotes).[3] A small minority of scientists add Archaea as a sixth kingdom, but do not accept the domain method.

Thomas Cavalier-Smith, who has published extensively on the classification of protists, has recently proposed that the Neomura, the clade which groups together the Archaea and Eukarya, would have evolved from Bacteria, more precisely from Actinobacteria.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, here we have it... this is all relatively new science, new definitions, new theories... and highly subjective and controversial at this time. Nothing is "established fact among all biologists" ....nothing is "proven fact" as you have tried to suggest. It is THEORY! In most cases, highly contested theory!

The simple fact remains, we have billions of life forms, and to get from a single cell organism to billions of life forms, requires some level of cross-genus evolution, at some point, some genus had to become something else! Not only did this have to happen once, but hundreds of thousands of times, to produce the billions of life forms found on the planet. Inner-genus evolution doesn't explain or rationalize it, that only accounts for evolution within a particular family. So, either the single-cell organism was "intelligent" and just knew to grow and evolve into numerous various life forms, or something else happened. What? We simply don't know.

Good, so you do know what the taxa are and are familiar with the concept of how the cladistic phylogonies fit into nested hiearchies?

You are still not getting it about evolutionary theory though. It never has predicted that evolution occurs at the group (genus) level, evolution occurs at the population (species) level. So what your actually stating is, again, evidence for macroevolution as evolutionary theory predicts that the mechanisms of evolution do not occur at the genus level and thus you would not expect, as you term it, cross genus transformation/evolution. If in fact you did observe this, you would falsify evolutionnary theory. Nor does this address the compelling evidence I've sited for macroevolution.

My other concern with your argument is that your just raising the bar. That even if there was proof of cross genus transformation that you would next ask for observation of cross family transformation and on up the phylogenetic tree.

 

[Damocles]

Good, so you do know what the taxa are and are familiar with the concept of how the cladistic phylogonies fit into nested hiearchies?

You are still not getting it about evolutionary theory though. It never has predicted that evolution occurs at the group (genus) level, evolution occurs at the population (species) level. So what your actually stating is, again, evidence for macroevolution as evolutionary theory predicts that the mechanisms of evolution do not occur at the genus level and thus you would not expect, as you term it, cross genus transformation/evolution. If in fact you did observe this, you would falsify evolutionnary theory. Nor does this address the compelling evidence I've sited for macroevolution.

My other concern with your argument is that your just raising the bar. That even if there was proof of cross genus transformation that you would next ask for observation of cross family transformation and on up the phylogenetic tree.

Basically what he is saying is that because nothing has moved from one genus to another it would be impossible to make the various genus. As, in order to create a new genus, something would have to cross that barrier, even if all things were thereafter in that genus derived from that one original cross-genus specie.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Basically what he is saying is that because nothing has moved from one genus to another it would be impossible to make the various genus. As, in order to create a new genus, something would have to cross that barrier, even if all things were thereafter in that genus derived from that one original cross-genus specie.

That's just it, that's the problem with his thinking. A genus is not "one" thing. It is an entire group of related species. An entire group of species tranforming into another entire group of species is not something evolution predicts would occur and there is no evidence of such an event having occured.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's just it, that's the problem with his thinking. A genus is not "one" thing. It is an entire group of related species. An entire group of species tranforming into another entire group of species is not something evolution predicts would occur and there is no evidence of such an event having occured.

Then what is your explanation for hundreds of thousands of entire groups? How did they get here? If you started with a single cell living organism, and nothing can transform from one genus to another (much less, one domain to another), then how do you explain all the various groups of life? It defies evolution theory itself, you admit that. So, evolution theory doesn't explain it.

Even IF you do explain this, then you must explain how this process was "intelligent" enough to "create" just the right amount of each domain, to support other domains dependent on it. Oh yes, the bar continues to be raised in science, that is what science is all about... continuing to ask questions, not drawing inane conclusion.

 

[Cancel3]

Even IF you do explain this, then you must explain how this process was "intelligent" enough to "create" just the right amount of each domain, to support other domains dependent on it.

Each domain would limit what is there naturally. There will be population swings, but it will balance in the long run.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Then what is your explanation for hundreds of thousands of entire groups? How did they get here? If you started with a single cell living organism, and nothing can transform from one genus to another (much less, one domain to another), then how do you explain all the various groups of life? It defies evolution theory itself, you admit that. So, evolution theory doesn't explain it.

Even IF you do explain this, then you must explain how this process was "intelligent" enough to "create" just the right amount of each domain, to support other domains dependent on it. Oh yes, the bar continues to be raised in science, that is what science is all about... continuing to ask questions, not drawing inane conclusion.

You're confusing yourself Dixie and your switching interchangebly from one level of taxonomy to another indescriminately. Entire groups do not transform into entirely other groups. As I said earlier, the mechanisms of evolution occurs at the species and subspecies level. How do I explain this? That's simple. Common descent is the only present explanation that makes sense and I've just provided substantial evidence for common descent.

Who cares how the process was created? That's not the topic. It's your assertion that it was created and did not evolve. Since I'm not predictng that the variety of complex life was 'Supernaturaly created" or "Intelligently Designed" but that complex life evolved over time via natural selection by common descent. Therefore I have no burden to demonstrate evidence of this "Intelligence". Since this is your assertion the burden is yours to provide evidence of this "Intellgent Design.". But again, your not addressing a single point of evidence that I've provided for macroevolution and you've completely ignored the evidence I've provided that falsifies Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're confusing yourself Dixie and your switching interchangebly from one level of taxonomy to another indescriminately. Entire groups do not transform into entirely other groups. As I said earlier, the mechanisms of evolution occurs at the species and subspecies level. How do I explain this? That's simple. Common descent is the only present explanation that makes sense and I've just provided substantial evidence for common descent.

Who cares how the process was created? That's not the topic. It's your assertion that it was created and did not evolve. Since I'm not predictng that the variety of complex life was 'Supernaturaly created" or "Intelligently Designed" but that complex life evolved over time via natural selection by common descent. Therefore I have no burden to demonstrate evidence of this "Intelligence". Since this is your assertion the burden is yours to provide evidence of this "Intellgent Design.". But again, your not addressing a single point of evidence that I've provided for macroevolution and you've completely ignored the evidence I've provided that falsifies Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.

I care how the process was created, because that is how we went from, a single cell, to billions of life forms. You keep saying you have provided evidence of "common descent" ...that comes out of one side of your mouth, as the other side proclaims we have never observed evolution across genus! How can both be true? If we are commonly descended, then at some time, one genus had to produce another! I don't understand why you are having such a hard time comprehending that simple fact of the matter, you don't go from a single cell to billions of various forms of life, unless something happened to cause that! It wasn't evolution, because evolution doesn't cause cross-genus changes.

It's your assertion that it was created and did not evolve.

That's just a fucking flat out lie, and you should know it by now. I've repeated this dozens of times in this thread alone! ID does not in any way, refute evolution theory! In fact, ID depends on evolution theory! It is one of the many miraculous attributes bestowed on living things, the ability to evolve and adapt. You are the one who wants to continue to try and refute ID with Evolution, and it's absurd on its face. Evolution is the theory of how things changed, not how they were originally created. They are two entirely independent concepts, and it's entirely possible for BOTH to be true!

There is no burden on me to "prove" anything! The burden is on both of us to continue to explore rational possibility, which you refuse to do. We didn't evolve from a single cell, the very theories and science you espouse, refutes that idea completely. Now.... were there hundreds of thousands of various types of single cell organisms, which evolved into the various domains of life? I suppose that could be possible, and could be supported with your macroevolution theories, but it begs the question, where did this variety of living organisms come from, and how did they just so happen to emerge in a convenient system of self-supporting life structures? Nothing in science as we understand science, can explain that. Without a reasonable explanation, and given the diverse complexity of living things, I think it is at least plausible to consider it may be the product of some intelligent force. It certainly doesn't seem logical that this all happened by random chance.

What's the source of intelligence? I don't profess to know, and I don't have to know. You can observe numerous things which are obviously the product of some intelligent design, without identifying the designer. Perhaps it was "God" but perhaps it was an alien civilization in another galaxy or dimension? There are numerous "ancient alien" theories out there, with quite a bit of tangible evidence to support them. Nowhere have I ever claimed that Jesus' Father created Adam and Eve, and that's how it all began. You can keep trying to classify my argument as such, but it simply shows profound ignorance and stubbornness on your part to do so.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I care how the process was created, because that is how we went from, a single cell, to billions of life forms.

We all care about that Dixie. But what process are you speaking about? Our ultimate creation or how biological speciation works?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I
I've repeated this dozens of times in this thread alone! ID does not in any way, refute evolution theory! In fact, ID depends on evolution theory! It is one of the many miraculous attributes bestowed on living things, the ability to evolve and adapt. You are the one who wants to continue to try and refute ID with Evolution, and it's absurd on its face. Evolution is the theory of how things changed, not how they were originally created. They are two entirely independent concepts, and it's entirely possible for BOTH to be true!

Well I agree with you too. Were both not as far apart as you would think on this. Philosophically we really share the same belief. So we do have common ground. I also understand why the concept of common descent makes evolutionary theory unpopular with many folks. It is an important distinction we make when we state that we are not animals. We are civilized human beings. This is hardly what one would call a trivial distinction. Evolutionary theory kind of contradicts that. It reminds us that, well yea, we really are animals. To which I paraphrase you when I say "Can't we be both?" and of course the answer is yes.

But that doesn't have anything to do with science Dixie. ID and creationist posit an explanation that's as valid as anyones belief but they are not science. That's the real problem of your reasoning is that you're blurring the lines about what science is and is not. Now though I do support your core belief, I don't think that can be called science.

Besides, that's not the challenge that was laid before me. Tobasco made a comment about the lack of evidence for macroevoluton. I have contradicted his point and shown much credible evidence for macroevolution and I've seen no specific challenges to the specific points I've made providing the evidence for macroevolution and I can certainly continue to go on providing evidence as I've only scratched the surface, there's a lot of it.

I have also demonstrated how ID theory can and has been falsified as a scientific theory. I've seen no specific response to that challenge either.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm a glutton for punishment, aint I?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We all care about that Dixie. But what process are you speaking about? Our ultimate creation or how biological speciation works?

I am answering your question asking "Who cares how that process was created?" and I understand your confusion, you continue to jump all over the board... what you proposed that question about, was this "common descent" theory you threw out there as if it were some sort of fact!

Well I agree with you too. Were both not as far apart as you would think on this. Philosophically we really share the same belief. So we do have common ground. I also understand why the concept of common descent makes evolutionary theory unpopular with many folks. It is an important distinction we make when we state that we are not animals. We are civilized human beings. This is hardly what one would call a trivial distinction. Evolutionary theory kind of contradicts that. It reminds us that, well yea, we really are animals. To which I paraphrase you when I say "Can't we be both?" and of course the answer is yes.

I don't think we share the same belief at all. Then again, you do continue to jump all over the board, so it is possible you've managed to cover my viewpoint at one time or another in the process. Yes, we are civilized humans, and we are animals, specifically, mammals. Those are facts, not a question. Evolution theory has nothing to do with that.

Throughout this thread, you have maintained that "common descent" is not a "concept" but a scientifically proven fact! Now, you are backing off that statement, and claiming it is a "concept" ....nice jump, but it doesn't comport with your previous statements. As I said, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, and it's amazing how different your position is out of each. I wish you would clarify, once and for all, what you personally think... did we all evolve from a single living organism, and if so, what scientific support do you have for that theory? ...OR... Is is impossible, as far as science knows, for a genus to transform into a unique genus? Clearly, both can't be true!

But that doesn't have anything to do with science Dixie. ID and creationist posit an explanation that's as valid as anyones belief but they are not science. That's the real problem of your reasoning is that you're blurring the lines about what science is and is not. Now though I do support your core belief, I don't think that can be called science.

Science is anything BUT altruistic empirical knowledge! The very theories you are presenting here, only emerged in science since 1990. Before 1990, they were "not science" and fell in the same category as ID. Human flight was "not science" until Wilbur and Orville Wright made that famous flight in Kitty Hawk, NC... Nuclear fission was "not science" until Albert Einstein presented his theory of relativity and changed what we know in science. Currently, black holes, dark energy, and anti-matter, could be said to be "not science" because there is not a scientific explanation for the phenomenon. Just because science has not yet found an explanation for something, or sufficient evidence to support something, doesn't mean you can discount it and dismiss it as a possibility. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence to suggest an intelligent designer. You just don't want to accept the evidence, and continue to try and refute it. I've presented this evidence numerous times in these threads, and you always do the same tap dance, refusing to listen or accept what is presented. Science is supposed to explore possibility, not refute and disparage things off the cuff.

.......Okay, let me try this approach.....

You know the difference between "fiction" and "science fiction" I presume... science fiction is fictional with the possibility of future scientific basis. So, let's have a little scenario based on sci-fi here...

Let's jump ahead to 500 years in the future... Our planet is visited by aliens! After some time for them to observe us, they have figured out how to communicate with us... and they explain to us, that billions of years ago, their civilization entered into a project to terraform a planet and "grow" life. They go through their entire process of how they did it, and it includes processes of evolution and natural selection. They further explain their existence is the result of actions taken by entities in another dimension, who instructed them on how to create life in this dimension. They are now here to share with another advanced intelligence, how this process works, so that we may terraform other planets and create life as well. They couldn't do this before, because we simply lacked the technological capability to understand what we needed to know.

Now, I realize that is really far out there... but isn't it possible? Couldn't it happen? Wouldn't it verify and confirm that we are indeed the product of intelligent design? The answer to all three is, YES! In that regard, it is foolish for you or ANY scientist, to dismiss or debunk any possibility of intelligent design, you simply don't know the answer to that question. I agree, presently, with the science we currently understand, with what we currently know as fact, science doesn't have concrete proof of intelligent design. However, that doesn't mean that science of the future will reach the same conclusions.

 

[Cancel3]

Science is anything BUT altruistic empirical knowledge! The very theories you are presenting here, only emerged in science since 1990. Before 1990, they were "not science" and fell in the same category as ID. Human flight was "not science" until Wilbur and Orville Wright made that famous flight in Kitty Hawk, NC... Nuclear fission was "not science" until Albert Einstein presented his theory of relativity and changed what we know in science. Currently, black holes, dark energy, and anti-matter, could be said to be "not science" because there is not a scientific explanation for the phenomenon.

Ok, then how about you get back to us with this "Teach ID in public schools" plan of yours when something happens (like with flight, nuclear fission and such) to give it something scientific to study instead of just your complaint that "blah blah wasn't science until it was discovered".

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ok, then how about you get back to us with this "Teach ID in public schools" plan of yours when something happens (like with flight, nuclear fission and such) to give it something scientific to study instead of just your complaint that "blah blah wasn't science until it was discovered".

Because Solitary, in "education" you teach things, you don't stubbornly refuse to teach things based on your personal views on faith. Whether ID is "scientific" or not, shouldn't be a factor in whether it is taught about in school! I mean, even if you want to say, this is something a lot of people believe, but science hasn't proven... that's fine, at least it is being taught. I have never advocated that we teach children that ID is fact, and we just need to accept it as fact. That seems to keep being what you and others want to make my argument into, and it's not that at all. I think it is imperative we teach information, ALL the information, regardless of our personal beliefs.

You've constructed a false boundary on education, whereby, we only teach things to students that you agree with. That's not education, that is brainwashing and indoctrination into your personal beliefs. I am willing to remove all boundaries, and teach children everyone's beliefs along with the facts, and let them determine what their beliefs are. Here's Abiogenesis, and here is the evidence people have offered to support the idea... Here's Macroevolution, and here is the evidence people have offered to support the concept... and here is Intelligent Design, and the evidence people have suggested for it. We don't KNOW what is factual, what is the TRUTH here, it remains an age-old question, but HERE is what the various ideas are! THAT'S what I want taught to our children in school!

 

[Cancel3]

Whether ID is "scientific" or not, shouldn't be a factor in whether it is taught about in school! I mean, even if you want to say, this is something a lot of people believe, but science hasn't proven... that's fine, at least it is being taught.

Funny, I always thought that whether something was scientific or not was the defining factor of whether it is taught in a science class.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I am answering your question asking "Who cares how that process was created?" and I understand your confusion, you continue to jump all over the board... what you proposed that question about, was this "common descent" theory you threw out there as if it were some sort of fact!

Because common descent is a fact. I've demonstrated that.

I don't think we share the same belief at all. Then again, you do continue to jump all over the board, so it is possible you've managed to cover my viewpoint at one time or another in the process. Yes, we are civilized humans, and we are animals, specifically, mammals. Those are facts, not a question. Evolution theory has nothing to do with that.

I do believe that was my point. That my (and your) personal beliefs are irrelevent in a scientific discussion.

Throughout this thread, you have maintained that "common descent" is not a "concept" but a scientifically proven fact! Now, you are backing off that statement, and claiming it is a "concept" ....nice jump, but it doesn't comport with your previous statements. As I said, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, and it's amazing how different your position is out of each. I wish you would clarify, once and for all, what you personally think... did we all evolve from a single living organism, and if so, what scientific support do you have for that theory? ...OR... Is is impossible, as far as science knows, for a genus to transform into a unique genus? Clearly, both can't be true!

Oh you're parsing words Dixie. When are you going to address my specific points on macroevolution?

Science is anything BUT altruistic empirical knowledge! The very theories you are presenting here, only emerged in science since 1990. Before 1990, they were "not science" and fell in the same category as ID. Human flight was "not science" until Wilbur and Orville Wright made that famous flight in Kitty Hawk, NC... Nuclear fission was "not science" until Albert Einstein presented his theory of relativity and changed what we know in science. Currently, black holes, dark energy, and anti-matter, could be said to be "not science" because there is not a scientific explanation for the phenomenon. Just because science has not yet found an explanation for something, or sufficient evidence to support something, doesn't mean you can discount it and dismiss it as a possibility. There is, in fact, plenty of evidence to suggest an intelligent designer. You just don't want to accept the evidence, and continue to try and refute it. I've presented this evidence numerous times in these threads, and you always do the same tap dance, refusing to listen or accept what is presented. Science is supposed to explore possibility, not refute and disparage things off the cuff.
.......Okay, let me try this approach.....

You know the difference between "fiction" and "science fiction" I presume... science fiction is fictional with the possibility of future scientific basis. So, let's have a little scenario based on sci-fi here...

Let's jump ahead to 500 years in the future... Our planet is visited by aliens! After some time for them to observe us, they have figured out how to communicate with us... and they explain to us, that billions of years ago, their civilization entered into a project to terraform a planet and "grow" life. They go through their entire process of how they did it, and it includes processes of evolution and natural selection. They further explain their existence is the result of actions taken by entities in another dimension, who instructed them on how to create life in this dimension. They are now here to share with another advanced intelligence, how this process works, so that we may terraform other planets and create life as well. They couldn't do this before, because we simply lacked the technological capability to understand what we needed to know.

Now, I realize that is really far out there... but isn't it possible? Couldn't it happen? Wouldn't it verify and confirm that we are indeed the product of intelligent design? The answer to all three is, YES! In that regard, it is foolish for you or ANY scientist, to dismiss or debunk any possibility of intelligent design, you simply don't know the answer to that question. I agree, presently, with the science we currently understand, with what we currently know as fact, science doesn't have concrete proof of intelligent design. However, that doesn't mean that science of the future will reach the same conclusions.

ahhh....sure it's possible. And what scientist are saying that ID is not possible? Hell anything is possible. Scientist say that ID is simply not science but you're changing the subject. The subject here is "What is the evidence for macroevolution." I've provided powerful evidence for it and that's just a small part of the evidence available.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ok, then how about you get back to us with this "Teach ID in public schools" plan of yours when something happens (like with flight, nuclear fission and such) to give it something scientific to study instead of just your complaint that "blah blah wasn't science until it was discovered".

These are tired old arguments that Dixie is really making.

The first argument about cross genus transformation is called the "Dogcat" argument. That we don't see any cross genus or family transformation. The refutation to that is, evolution predicts no such thing. In other words, it's a strawman.

The second argument is the old "Evolution has never been directly observed". The macroevolution argument is descended from this argument in that with the discovery of DNA and genetics allele frequency shifts in species evolution has actually been observed, so they raise the bar to say "Well that's Microevolution but Macroevolution has never been directly observed." It's a bogus argument and the answer to that is "So what?". Atoms have never been directly observed. We have infered their existance from a mountain of evidence that has been observed about the nature of atoms. No sane person now really doubts the existence of atoms or the factual basis of atomic theory. The same is essentially true about evolution. None of us will live long enough to directly observe Macroevolution but so what if it's never been directly observed, the mountain of evidence that we have about common descent and natural selection allows us to infer the existence of this fact.

My point being that there is nothing new here in Dixie's arguments. These are two tired old creationist argument.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Funny, I always thought that whether something was scientific or not was the defining factor of whether it is taught in a science class.

It is. To scientist.