Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and "Faith" and "Authority"

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 1:07:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A common argument I see by the anti-evolution crowd is that we only believe in evolution on "faith" and that when we point out the sheer level of consensus of the scientific support for evolutionary theory, it's claimed by the anti-evolutionists that we're just arguing on the basis of "authority" figures saying it so it must be true. What the anti-evolutionists are doing is conflating two different meanings of "faith" as well as misunderstanding when an appeal to "authority" is fallacious.

Here's an example. Imagine that one day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he was abducted by aliens, probed, seeded with an alien embryo, and then returned to Earth. Let's also imagine that on another day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he's bought a new cat and that he got it from a rescue shelter or pet shop or whatever.

Now I hold my best friend to a high degree of trust because generally I've found that he's generally a consistently reliable kinda guy, so I'd say I have plenty of faith in him. Nonetheless, if he tells me about the first claim with the aliens, I'm going to consider it bullsh!t unless he provides an exceptional amount of high-quality evidence to demonstrate his claim, and it would take far higher faith for me to believe such a claim.

In contrast, if he tells me the second claim, then that's different, because I know my best friend to generally be a "cat guy" so to speak and I know that he's bought cats in one of those two ways before. Based on this simple amount of evidence, I would be able to believe his second claim and have faith that he is being truthful, but if I had doubts and felt compelled to ask him to verify his claim, then he'd be able to actually demonstrate the claim that he actually bought a cat and that it now lives with him: He could take me to his house, show the cat happily living there, show me the documentation of his purchase, get testimony from the person who sold him the cat as well as any other witnesses. In the first claim however, my best friend would probably fold under questioning.

The point here is that not all "faith" claims are created equal, and there are certain things we have "faith" about but which we can then go ahead and actually verify when we go ahead and test those things and see if they match our predictions about what we should expect to see if the things around us are true. My best friend being able to substantiate the details about his cat purchase is directly analogous to any "faith" we put in the scientists working in the field of biology and doing research in evolutionary theory. Sure, we have "faith" in them, but that's because they've consistently shown that they can substantiate their claims and that they're fully qualified to make such claims (the latter of which we'll get to in a moment). In contrast, well, the anti-evolutionists have unjustified faith in the pseudo-scientists as well as religious preachers and politicians calling evolution wrong based entirely on their non-evidenced religious beliefs about what a bunch of bronze-age goat herders had to say, who in turn had demonstrated in multiple parts of the Bible their sheer levels of inaccuracy when it came to aspects of scientific theory: http://rationalwiki.org... , http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... , http://www.biblicalnonsense.com... .

Now what makes reliable authorities? Imagine you're doing your mathematics course but you need some tutoring in order for you to get better grades. Now imagine that there are two friends for you to choose from: either someone who you know to be does particularly well in some of the minor subjects in school like RE but only achieves below your level in the maths course and thinks you should just pray for success, or the friend of yours who constantly aces the work he's given for maths and constantly gets the highest grades in the class: which of these are you going to turn to for help?

Is the above an Argument from Authority? Absolutely. But the thing that makes this not a fallacy and actually a valid and essential argument is that the authority you appeal to is a qualified expert source. In the above example, you are considerably more likely to get the grades you want and the correct information if you trust the actual experts. And again, you're not trusting the experts based on nothing, but because they have a consistent tendency to actually demonstrate that their findings are accurate and up-to-date within a reliable scientific process that no matter what the personal biases of the testers are, when the process is done right it proves the theory, and provides a solid foundation to any claims of expertise the testers may have. In contrast, anti-evolutionists tend to use appeals to authority that consist of people who aren't even remotely experts on the topic, people who are biased and don't represent the scientific community, and generally other BS quotes: http://rationalwiki.org...

So overall, the accusations anti-evolutionists level about faith and authority with regards to evolution proponents amounts to very deceitful tactics that misunderstand the natures of how faith and authority work in the sciences.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:29:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 1:07:41 PM, JonMilne wrote:
A common argument I see by the anti-evolution crowd is that we only believe in evolution on "faith"

The point is not so much whether they believe that issue to be true, but rather who their intended audience is when they say it. IDers and their ilk are rarely concerned with targeting science educators/professionals themselves but rather seek only to create the impression that there is debate worth having in the wider public where public opinion can be used more effectively for their targeted aims. 'Evolution is faith' arguments are just one small piece of a wide spread deployment known as the Wedge Strategy (taken from the infamous Wedge Document).
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:24:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 2:29:41 AM, Puck wrote:
At 12/2/2013 1:07:41 PM, JonMilne wrote:
A common argument I see by the anti-evolution crowd is that we only believe in evolution on "faith"

The point is not so much whether they believe that issue to be true, but rather who their intended audience is when they say it. IDers and their ilk are rarely concerned with targeting science educators/professionals themselves but rather seek only to create the impression that there is debate worth having in the wider public where public opinion can be used more effectively for their targeted aims. 'Evolution is faith' arguments are just one small piece of a wide spread deployment known as the Wedge Strategy (taken from the infamous Wedge Document).

Yeah I know all about the Wedge Strategy, but I felt that ultimately the general arguments IDers/Creationists make about faith and authority are particularly intellectually dishonest so much that I felt the need to explain in this thread the differences between the types of faith we hold and authorities whose arguments we pay attention to.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 2:50:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And to go further on from the Arguments from Authority, Creationists/IDers had no qualms about supporting the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" petition, which they boast had 700 signatures, despite the fact that nearly all of the signatories had absolutely no expertise in biology and those that did had not published any meaningful research in their careers, and many signatories weren't even actual scientists. Not to mention that the petition itself took four years to even achieve that many signatories, among other flaws: http://rationalwiki.org...

In contrast, the Creationists/IDers are all too keen to dismiss counter-petitions like "A Scientific Support For Darwinism" http://en.wikipedia.org... , which gained 7,733 signatures from actual scientists, with 68% of the signatories being those with actual expertise in biological fields of science, not to mention that that petition took a mere 4 days to reach that number. Project Steve as well managed to get more signatories than the Discovery Institute petition just with scientists with some variation of the name "Steve". It kind of demonstrates just how insignificant the ID position really is.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 10:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll engage you on this. I'm the craziest sort of Creationist that takes the six day creation account literally.

Please keep in mind, that just because another Christian somewhere made a claim or paper or petition, doesn't mean I'm the least bit aware of it, nor am I obligated to agree, accept, or defend other Christians' claims outside the Bible. You can bring them up, but please don't assume I hold to them:

My main source for authority is the Bible. I use life experience, trustworthy people, observation, and [in a pinch] my gut, etc., for the rest.

For reference, you have complete access to my source of authority, online, and you may even have a copy at home, somewhere. So what's your source of authority, and how do you know it's authoritative?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 3:37:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2013 10:53:58 PM, Skynet wrote:
For reference, you have complete access to my source of authority, online, and you may even have a copy at home, somewhere. So what's your source of authority, and how do you know it's authoritative?

Haven't I already explained this? My source of authority on evolution is science and the scientific method in particular the qualified scientists engaging in relevant fields to evolutionary theory. As for how I can know they are authoritative, it's not because any of them hold famous names, it's because they've consistently demonstrated that their theories are considerably more reliable than any others, with evolution in particular having more than demonstrated that it is the best possible explanation for the evidence we have. Not to mention the practical use of evolutionary theory far out-weighs anything of use that has been inspired by the creationism hypothesis.

And of course, there's the fact that in the history of scientific field, the number of natural explanations for how the world works replacing supernatural ones? Countless examples. The number of supernatural explanations for how the world works replacing natural ones? Exactly zero.

Even apart from religion, the application of so-called "pure reason" in the absence of experiment has led to centuries of serious misinformation about the nature of the universe. Aristotle was utterly convinced that heavy objects fell faster than light objects, because it just seemed obvious. It took over 1900 years before Galileo corrected that record.

Scientific inquiry resulted in the discovery of the structure of the solar system and eventually the existence of other galaxies. Religious officials jailed the proponents of such discoveries. The Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment brought about an explosion of scientific discoveries, in areas including life-extending medicine, harnessing the power of electricity, and rapid transportation. These in turn brought about the advancements of the modern world, including our ability to detect and measure behavior at near light speeds and subatomic sizes, near-instantaneous communication from anywhere on the planet, and awesome games like Call of Duty.

Basically, science won. The Bible existed for a couple of thousand years, stuffed full of speculative answers and talking snakes and parting seas, before scientists set about the business of actually observing reality and reverse engineering how things work. At this point in history, the credibility of science is so well established that religious advocates, who were once able to proclaim truth by fiat, have clamoured in the last century to wrap themselves in the mantle of science in order to maintain some of their perceived authority.

Consider the history of American creationism in the last hundred years. Prior to the 1925 Scopes trial, the Tennessee law simply outlawed "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible", tacit official acceptance of Biblical stories as reality in other words. By the 1960s, the creationist movement adapted by calling themselves "scientific creationism" in order to piggyback on the authority of the word "scientific." And by the 1990s, under the banner of "Intelligent Design," the creationist movement sought to cover up the fundamental religious nature of creationism entirely, although that connection was decisively re-established in the Dover trial. In similar fashion, religious advocates throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries have tried to retroactively align themselves with the lingo of science, even if they bypassed most of the methods.

The creationist/Goddist position is completely dishonest, for one main reason: it has failed to stand up to rigorous testing. Just look at the websites at the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" and the "Skeptical Inquirer", where Creationism/ID/God claims have featured. The pattern is always the same:

Claimants: "Supernatural Claim X is true!"
Scientists: "We have subjected careful testing to Supernatural Claim X, applying the standard scientific methods used in research to screen out bias and fraud."
Claimants: "So what were the results?"
Scientists: "We have found conclusively that Supernatural Claim X holds about as much water as sieve."
Claimants: "Even though we agreed beforehand that the testing method is valid, this is TOTALLY UNFAIR! BIAS! WAHH!!!"

On that last point, the great thing about the scientific method is that it gets rid of bias, and when done right it proves the theory no matter how biased the testers were or are. Some great evidence for this comes in the fact that in the early days of science and the scientific method, most scientists did believe in God/the soul/the metaphysical/basic creationist bullsh!t. Indeed, many early scientific experiments were attempts to prove that those things were existent and what their true natures were so that all the arguments about them could be settled once and for all. It was only after decades of these experiments failing to produce anything that the community of science began to gradually and very reluctantly move away from such ideas.

This is the thing: contrary to the "rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research that has obeyed the Gold Standard of scientific evidence wherein methods have been used to filter out biases and cognitive errors as much as humanly possible" evidence that is gathered for evolution, creationism/ID/God claims only stands after careless, casual examination based on wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Not to mention poor understandings/instincts of creationists/IDers/Goddists when it comes to probability, and the tendency of creationists/IDers/Goddists to see patterns and intentions where none exists, in addition to intrinsic cognitive biases and weird human brain wiring that creationists/IDers have. When their ideas are studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen those biases out, the claims crumble into dust.

Not to mention also that they constantly move the goalposts. They insist on claiming that they are absolutely certain about the accuracy of their theories and the Bible and are all too quick to denigrate opposing theories (like evolution), but when challenged on specific scientific and historical errors, they insist that their detractors aren't interpreting the evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design properly. (Speaking of which, if God and the Bible are so perfect, or if this "Design" is so "Intelligent", then why does it need interpreting?)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you arguing with a imaginary person here?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 6:01:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2013 1:07:41 PM, JonMilne wrote:
A common argument I see by the anti-evolution crowd is that we only believe in evolution on "faith" and that when we point out the sheer level of consensus of the scientific support for evolutionary theory, it's claimed by the anti-evolutionists that we're just arguing on the basis of "authority" figures saying it so it must be true. What the anti-evolutionists are doing is conflating two different meanings of "faith" as well as misunderstanding when an appeal to "authority" is fallacious.

Here's an example. Imagine that one day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he was abducted by aliens, probed, seeded with an alien embryo, and then returned to Earth. Let's also imagine that on another day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he's bought a new cat and that he got it from a rescue shelter or pet shop or whatever.

Now I hold my best friend to a high degree of trust because generally I've found that he's generally a consistently reliable kinda guy, so I'd say I have plenty of faith in him. Nonetheless, if he tells me about the first claim with the aliens, I'm going to consider it bullsh!t unless he provides an exceptional amount of high-quality evidence to demonstrate his claim, and it would take far higher faith for me to believe such a claim.

In contrast, if he tells me the second claim, then that's different, because I know my best friend to generally be a "cat guy" so to speak and I know that he's bought cats in one of those two ways before. Based on this simple amount of evidence, I would be able to believe his second claim and have faith that he is being truthful, but if I had doubts and felt compelled to ask him to verify his claim, then he'd be able to actually demonstrate the claim that he actually bought a cat and that it now lives with him: He could take me to his house, show the cat happily living there, show me the documentation of his purchase, get testimony from the person who sold him the cat as well as any other witnesses. In the first claim however, my best friend would probably fold under questioning.

The point here is that not all "faith" claims are created equal, and there are certain things we have "faith" about but which we can then go ahead and actually verify when we go ahead and test those things and see if they match our predictions about what we should expect to see if the things around us are true. My best friend being able to substantiate the details about his cat purchase is directly analogous to any "faith" we put in the scientists working in the field of biology and doing research in evolutionary theory. Sure, we have "faith" in them, but that's because they've consistently shown that they can substantiate their claims and that they're fully qualified to make such claims (the latter of which we'll get to in a moment). In contrast, well, the anti-evolutionists have unjustified faith in the pseudo-scientists as well as religious preachers and politicians calling evolution wrong based entirely on their non-evidenced religious beliefs about what a bunch of bronze-age goat herders had to say, who in turn had demonstrated in multiple parts of the Bible their sheer levels of inaccuracy when it came to aspects of scientific theory: http://rationalwiki.org... , http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... , http://www.biblicalnonsense.com... .

Now what makes reliable authorities? Imagine you're doing your mathematics course but you need some tutoring in order for you to get better grades. Now imagine that there are two friends for you to choose from: either someone who you know to be does particularly well in some of the minor subjects in school like RE but only achieves below your level in the maths course and thinks you should just pray for success, or the friend of yours who constantly aces the work he's given for maths and constantly gets the highest grades in the class: which of these are you going to turn to for help?

Is the above an Argument from Authority? Absolutely. But the thing that makes this not a fallacy and actually a valid and essential argument is that the authority you appeal to is a qualified expert source. In the above example, you are considerably more likely to get the grades you want and the correct information if you trust the actual experts. And again, you're not trusting the experts based on nothing, but because they have a consistent tendency to actually demonstrate that their findings are accurate and up-to-date within a reliable scientific process that no matter what the personal biases of the testers are, when the process is done right it proves the theory, and provides a solid foundation to any claims of expertise the testers may have. In contrast, anti-evolutionists tend to use appeals to authority that consist of people who aren't even remotely experts on the topic, people who are biased and don't represent the scientific community, and generally other BS quotes: http://rationalwiki.org...

So overall, the accusations anti-evolutionists level about faith and authority with regards to evolution proponents amounts to very deceitful tactics that misunderstand the natures of how faith and authority work in the sciences.

Hi Jon...I would love to engage this claim of yours. Please tell me exactly what you mean by "evolution"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 3:37:40 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/5/2013 10:53:58 PM, Skynet wrote:
For reference, you have complete access to my source of authority, online, and you may even have a copy at home, somewhere. So what's your source of authority, and how do you know it's authoritative?

Haven't I already explained this? My source of authority on evolution is science and the scientific method in particular the qualified scientists engaging in relevant fields to evolutionary theory. As for how I can know they are authoritative, it's not because any of them hold famous names, it's because they've consistently demonstrated that their theories are considerably more reliable than any others, with evolution in particular having more than demonstrated that it is the best possible explanation for the evidence we have. Not to mention the practical use of evolutionary theory far out-weighs anything of use that has been inspired by the creationism hypothesis.

And of course, there's the fact that in the history of scientific field, the number of natural explanations for how the world works replacing supernatural ones? Countless examples. The number of supernatural explanations for how the world works replacing natural ones? Exactly zero.

Even apart from religion, the application of so-called "pure reason" in the absence of experiment has led to centuries of serious misinformation about the nature of the universe. Aristotle was utterly convinced that heavy objects fell faster than light objects, because it just seemed obvious. It took over 1900 years before Galileo corrected that record.

Scientific inquiry resulted in the discovery of the structure of the solar system and eventually the existence of other galaxies. Religious officials jailed the proponents of such discoveries. The Renaissance and subsequent Enlightenment brought about an explosion of scientific discoveries, in areas including life-extending medicine, harnessing the power of electricity, and rapid transportation. These in turn brought about the advancements of the modern world, including our ability to detect and measure behavior at near light speeds and subatomic sizes, near-instantaneous communication from anywhere on the planet, and awesome games like Call of Duty.

Basically, science won. The Bible existed for a couple of thousand years, stuffed full of speculative answers and talking snakes and parting seas, before scientists set about the business of actually observing reality and reverse engineering how things work. At this point in history, the credibility of science is so well established that religious advocates, who were once able to proclaim truth by fiat, have clamoured in the last century to wrap themselves in the mantle of science in order to maintain some of their perceived authority.

Consider the history of American creationism in the last hundred years. Prior to the 1925 Scopes trial, the Tennessee law simply outlawed "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible", tacit official acceptance of Biblical stories as reality in other words. By the 1960s, the creationist movement adapted by calling themselves "scientific creationism" in order to piggyback on the authority of the word "scientific." And by the 1990s, under the banner of "Intelligent Design," the creationist movement sought to cover up the fundamental religious nature of creationism entirely, although that connection was decisively re-established in the Dover trial. In similar fashion, religious advocates throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries have tried to retroactively align themselves with the lingo of science, even if they bypassed most of the methods.

The creationist/Goddist position is completely dishonest, for one main reason: it has failed to stand up to rigorous testing. Just look at the websites at the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" and the "Skeptical Inquirer", where Creationism/ID/God claims have featured. The pattern is always the same:

Claimants: "Supernatural Claim X is true!"
Scientists: "We have subjected careful testing to Supernatural Claim X, applying the standard scientific methods used in research to screen out bias and fraud."
Claimants: "So what were the results?"
Scientists: "We have found conclusively that Supernatural Claim X holds about as much water as sieve."
Claimants: "Even though we agreed beforehand that the testing method is valid, this is TOTALLY UNFAIR! BIAS! WAHH!!!"

On that last point, the great thing about the scientific method is that it gets rid of bias, and when done right it proves the theory no matter how biased the testers were or are. Some great evidence for this comes in the fact that in the early days of science and the scientific method, most scientists did believe in God/the soul/the metaphysical/basic creationist bullsh!t. Indeed, many early scientific experiments were attempts to prove that those things were existent and what their true natures were so that all the arguments about them could be settled once and for all. It was only after decades of these experiments failing to produce anything that the community of science began to gradually and very reluctantly move away from such ideas.

This is the thing: contrary to the "rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research that has obeyed the Gold Standard of scientific evidence wherein methods have been used to filter out biases and cognitive errors as much as humanly possible" evidence that is gathered for evolution, creationism/ID/God claims only stands after careless, casual examination based on wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Not to mention poor understandings/instincts of creationists/IDers/Goddists when it comes to probability, and the tendency of creationists/IDers/Goddists to see patterns and intentions where none exists, in addition to intrinsic cognitive biases and weird human brain wiring that creationists/IDers have. When their ideas are studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen those biases out, the claims crumble into dust.

Not to mention also that they constantly move the goalposts. They insist on claiming that they are absolutely certain about the accuracy of their theories and the Bible and are all too quick to denigrate opposing theories (like evolution), but when challenged on specific scientific and historical errors, they insist that their detractors aren't interpreting the evidence for Creationism/Intelligent Design properly. (Speaking of which, if God and the Bible are so perfect, or if this "Design" is so "Intelligent", then why does it need interpreting?)

I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion. If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view, you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 8:21:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:

I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion. If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view, you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

To me 'the basics' would be the available evidence and reasonable interpretation of the evidence that leads to a non-supernatural explanation. This leads me to a conclusion that evolution is the most likely scientific explanation. You have a different conclusion, so do you have a different starting point? What are the basics?
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 5:55:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Are you arguing with a imaginary person here?

Is there any purpose in you being here other than to provide no arguments of substance? In any case, perhaps you didn't notice Skynet's appearance.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 1:22:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 6:01:27 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 12/2/2013 1:07:41 PM, JonMilne wrote:
A common argument I see by the anti-evolution crowd is that we only believe in evolution on "faith" and that when we point out the sheer level of consensus of the scientific support for evolutionary theory, it's claimed by the anti-evolutionists that we're just arguing on the basis of "authority" figures saying it so it must be true. What the anti-evolutionists are doing is conflating two different meanings of "faith" as well as misunderstanding when an appeal to "authority" is fallacious.

Here's an example. Imagine that one day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he was abducted by aliens, probed, seeded with an alien embryo, and then returned to Earth. Let's also imagine that on another day, my best friend comes up to me and says that he's bought a new cat and that he got it from a rescue shelter or pet shop or whatever.

Now I hold my best friend to a high degree of trust because generally I've found that he's generally a consistently reliable kinda guy, so I'd say I have plenty of faith in him. Nonetheless, if he tells me about the first claim with the aliens, I'm going to consider it bullsh!t unless he provides an exceptional amount of high-quality evidence to demonstrate his claim, and it would take far higher faith for me to believe such a claim.

In contrast, if he tells me the second claim, then that's different, because I know my best friend to generally be a "cat guy" so to speak and I know that he's bought cats in one of those two ways before. Based on this simple amount of evidence, I would be able to believe his second claim and have faith that he is being truthful, but if I had doubts and felt compelled to ask him to verify his claim, then he'd be able to actually demonstrate the claim that he actually bought a cat and that it now lives with him: He could take me to his house, show the cat happily living there, show me the documentation of his purchase, get testimony from the person who sold him the cat as well as any other witnesses. In the first claim however, my best friend would probably fold under questioning.

The point here is that not all "faith" claims are created equal, and there are certain things we have "faith" about but which we can then go ahead and actually verify when we go ahead and test those things and see if they match our predictions about what we should expect to see if the things around us are true. My best friend being able to substantiate the details about his cat purchase is directly analogous to any "faith" we put in the scientists working in the field of biology and doing research in evolutionary theory. Sure, we have "faith" in them, but that's because they've consistently shown that they can substantiate their claims and that they're fully qualified to make such claims (the latter of which we'll get to in a moment). In contrast, well, the anti-evolutionists have unjustified faith in the pseudo-scientists as well as religious preachers and politicians calling evolution wrong based entirely on their non-evidenced religious beliefs about what a bunch of bronze-age goat herders had to say, who in turn had demonstrated in multiple parts of the Bible their sheer levels of inaccuracy when it came to aspects of scientific theory: http://rationalwiki.org... , http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com... , http://www.biblicalnonsense.com... .

Now what makes reliable authorities? Imagine you're doing your mathematics course but you need some tutoring in order for you to get better grades. Now imagine that there are two friends for you to choose from: either someone who you know to be does particularly well in some of the minor subjects in school like RE but only achieves below your level in the maths course and thinks you should just pray for success, or the friend of yours who constantly aces the work he's given for maths and constantly gets the highest grades in the class: which of these are you going to turn to for help?

Is the above an Argument from Authority? Absolutely. But the thing that makes this not a fallacy and actually a valid and essential argument is that the authority you appeal to is a qualified expert source. In the above example, you are considerably more likely to get the grades you want and the correct information if you trust the actual experts. And again, you're not trusting the experts based on nothing, but because they have a consistent tendency to actually demonstrate that their findings are accurate and up-to-date within a reliable scientific process that no matter what the personal biases of the testers are, when the process is done right it proves the theory, and provides a solid foundation to any claims of expertise the testers may have. In contrast, anti-evolutionists tend to use appeals to authority that consist of people who aren't even remotely experts on the topic, people who are biased and don't represent the scientific community, and generally other BS quotes: http://rationalwiki.org...

So overall, the accusations anti-evolutionists level about faith and authority with regards to evolution proponents amounts to very deceitful tactics that misunderstand the natures of how faith and authority work in the sciences.

Hi Jon...I would love to engage this claim of yours. Please tell me exactly what you mean by "evolution"

I'll direct you here, since it helps to know the definition of all evolutionary terms, and NAS is pretty reliable for that: http://www.nas.edu...
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2013 1:30:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion.

It's not a "tirade", it's a simple statement of the facts. Sorry if the truth hurts. If you like, you can simply address the first two paragraphs of my response.

If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view,

What precisely was complicated about what I said?

you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

Unlike creationists, we don't pretend to be absolutely certain that our actual scientific theory is infallible. We're more than aware that some new evidence could turn up in the future that would completely overturn evolution and bring about a new theory to explain all the evidence we have. That's why through the experiments we do we constantly try to falsify it, but our tests end up consistently confirming the predictions we make for what we should find if evolutionary theory is true.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 12:38:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 1:30:34 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion.

It's not a "tirade", it's a simple statement of the facts. Sorry if the truth hurts. If you like, you can simply address the first two paragraphs of my response.

If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view,

What precisely was complicated about what I said?

you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

Unlike creationists, we don't pretend to be absolutely certain that our actual scientific theory is infallible. We're more than aware that some new evidence could turn up in the future that would completely overturn evolution and bring about a new theory to explain all the evidence we have. That's why through the experiments we do we constantly try to falsify it, but our tests end up consistently confirming the predictions we make for what we should find if evolutionary theory is true.

I asked what your source of authority was, and how you knew it was so, and I get an answer about how Christians ruin everything. You will not be able to answer simple questions about yourself without bashing others.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 12:53:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:38:34 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/9/2013 1:30:34 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion.

It's not a "tirade", it's a simple statement of the facts. Sorry if the truth hurts. If you like, you can simply address the first two paragraphs of my response.

If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view,

What precisely was complicated about what I said?

you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

Unlike creationists, we don't pretend to be absolutely certain that our actual scientific theory is infallible. We're more than aware that some new evidence could turn up in the future that would completely overturn evolution and bring about a new theory to explain all the evidence we have. That's why through the experiments we do we constantly try to falsify it, but our tests end up consistently confirming the predictions we make for what we should find if evolutionary theory is true.

I asked what your source of authority was, and how you knew it was so, and I get an answer about how Christians ruin everything. You will not be able to answer simple questions about yourself without bashing others.

I may be simply guessing, but I think the source of authority in this case is the convenience of humans having two eyes to receive information, along with a brain to process information, i.e. looking at evidence and coming to a logical conclusion that best fits the evidence instead of reading a several thousand year old book and assuming everything it says is true.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2013 6:00:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/9/2013 1:20:25 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 5:55:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Are you arguing with a imaginary person here?

Is there any purpose in you being here other than to provide no arguments of substance? In any case, perhaps you didn't notice Skynet's appearance.

It's not that I don't understand the appeal of starting a thread where you take both sides of an argument, I mean, you can be assured you win if you are your own opponent, but it just strikes me as "needy".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 2:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:53:46 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/10/2013 12:38:34 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/9/2013 1:30:34 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion.

It's not a "tirade", it's a simple statement of the facts. Sorry if the truth hurts. If you like, you can simply address the first two paragraphs of my response.

If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view,

What precisely was complicated about what I said?

you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

Unlike creationists, we don't pretend to be absolutely certain that our actual scientific theory is infallible. We're more than aware that some new evidence could turn up in the future that would completely overturn evolution and bring about a new theory to explain all the evidence we have. That's why through the experiments we do we constantly try to falsify it, but our tests end up consistently confirming the predictions we make for what we should find if evolutionary theory is true.

I asked what your source of authority was, and how you knew it was so, and I get an answer about how Christians ruin everything. You will not be able to answer simple questions about yourself without bashing others.

I may be simply guessing, but I think the source of authority in this case is the convenience of humans having two eyes to receive information, along with a brain to process information, i.e. looking at evidence and coming to a logical conclusion that best fits the evidence instead of reading a several thousand year old book and assuming everything it says is true.

Well put.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 2:43:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 12:38:34 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 12/9/2013 1:30:34 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 10:27:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
I have been trying for a long time to engage an Evolutionist on this site on a basic level, and the rant you just gave me is a carbon copy of every other athiest tirade I've gotten about science and religion.

It's not a "tirade", it's a simple statement of the facts. Sorry if the truth hurts. If you like, you can simply address the first two paragraphs of my response.

If you are unable to discuss the basics of something so important to you with someone with an opposing view,

What precisely was complicated about what I said?

you may find too late that something very important you hold to be foundational is completely wrong.

Unlike creationists, we don't pretend to be absolutely certain that our actual scientific theory is infallible. We're more than aware that some new evidence could turn up in the future that would completely overturn evolution and bring about a new theory to explain all the evidence we have. That's why through the experiments we do we constantly try to falsify it, but our tests end up consistently confirming the predictions we make for what we should find if evolutionary theory is true.

I asked what your source of authority was, and how you knew it was so, and I get an answer about how Christians ruin everything. You will not be able to answer simple questions about yourself without bashing others.

My "authority" is the proven reliability of credible actually qualified scientists engaging in the scientific method to a credible degree. I do not follow any of these scientists as a matter of "personality cults", which is what creationists try to smear supporters of evolution with being as (for example, the common smear label of "Darwinists" or insisting that we support evolution because Dawkins or someone else says it is true), but because the things they say stand up to testing and produce consistent accurate results in evolutionary theory's favour.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 2:45:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/10/2013 6:00:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/9/2013 1:20:25 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 5:55:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Are you arguing with a imaginary person here?

Is there any purpose in you being here other than to provide no arguments of substance? In any case, perhaps you didn't notice Skynet's appearance.

It's not that I don't understand the appeal of starting a thread where you take both sides of an argument, I mean, you can be assured you win if you are your own opponent, but it just strikes me as "needy".

I was addressing arguments I have heard in other threads, and felt the desire to have a thread rebutting the particular argument I've heard when it comes to how anti-evolution arguers smear the supporters of evolutionary theory.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 7:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 2:45:01 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/10/2013 6:00:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 12/9/2013 1:20:25 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 12/8/2013 5:55:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Are you arguing with a imaginary person here?

Is there any purpose in you being here other than to provide no arguments of substance? In any case, perhaps you didn't notice Skynet's appearance.

It's not that I don't understand the appeal of starting a thread where you take both sides of an argument, I mean, you can be assured you win if you are your own opponent, but it just strikes me as "needy".

I was addressing arguments I have heard in other threads, and felt the desire to have a thread rebutting the particular argument I've heard when it comes to how anti-evolution arguers smear the supporters of evolutionary theory.

You heard argument in other threads and wanted to respond here? That makes sense, and I have a particularly strong reply for you, but I suppose I should put it in another thread on another board.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 8:14:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

But that happened too quickly to be evolution and it's not enough to be a dog so you're wrong. Ha, take that you silly evilutionist! [http://creation.com...]
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 8:14:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

But that happened too quickly to be evolution and it's not enough to be a dog so you're wrong. Ha, take that you silly evilutionist! [http://creation.com...]

They did it again with algae in the last few months.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 9:04:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/11/2013 8:14:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

But that happened too quickly to be evolution and it's not enough to be a dog so you're wrong. Ha, take that you silly evilutionist! [http://creation.com...]

They did it again with algae in the last few months.

Stiill not a dog.. Lol :D
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2013 9:30:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 9:27:14 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/11/2013 9:04:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/11/2013 8:14:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

But that happened too quickly to be evolution and it's not enough to be a dog so you're wrong. Ha, take that you silly evilutionist! [http://creation.com...]

They did it again with algae in the last few months.

Stiill not a dog.. Lol :D

What you did there.... I see it.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

Lool. This reminds me of Ptolemy's theory where weird trajectories were proposed in order to maintain the idea that the earth is geocentric.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

All the report does is:

1- Explore adaptive mechanism of yeast cells in an environment.
2- Claims that natural selection created this mechanism because it is advantageous within said environment. (Cuz its an advantage, and everything happens due to having an advantage!)
3- Claim that yeast is evolving or was the stepping stone into multicellularity.

According to an interview:
"We"re seeing the evolution of increased cell size as a way of getting larger clusters, without requiring the yeast to essentially wait for mutations that increase the number of cells within the cluster," Ratcliff said.

http://science-fare.com...

In other words: "The mechanism was already there, and we think evolution caused it and created multicellularity."

So really, all the journal article does is assume that yeast evolved adaptive group mechanism. The funny thing is, if I claim that yeast is actually devolving from multicellularity, my claim is just as credible as the journal's claim. Zero empirical evidence or scientific explanation is provided for that assumption. So if you are going to use that article as an argument, it would be circular logic.
"Cuz it have an advantage" does not answer or imply how it happened. It does not provide any sort of a scientific physical mechanism or sequence of steps. It does not even show how randomness is more plausible than intelligence philosophically.

This is equivalent to a historical hypothesis. I asked for scientific evidence, thus my points stand.

All I am asking for is evidence that any known evolutionary mechanism is powerful and coordinated enough to allow a single cell to be responsible for all the amazing life forms on this planet. Or something that shows that dinosaurs can become humming birds, or that raccoons which previously were fish can become whales.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 10:14:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 5:51:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

Lool. This reminds me of Ptolemy's theory where weird trajectories were proposed in order to maintain the idea that the earth is geocentric.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...




All the report does is:

1- Explore adaptive mechanism of yeast cells in an environment.
2- Claims that natural selection created this mechanism because it is advantageous within said environment. (Cuz its an advantage, and everything happens due to having an advantage!)

I would like to hear your explanation for how this is not natural selection.

3- Claim that yeast is evolving or was the stepping stone into multicellularity.

Multicellularity is thought to have independently evolved at least 25 times. The latter claim was certainly not made.

According to an interview:
"We"re seeing the evolution of increased cell size as a way of getting larger clusters, without requiring the yeast to essentially wait for mutations that increase the number of cells within the cluster," Ratcliff said.

http://science-fare.com...

Cells only became larger for purposes of increasing cluster size after they were in clusters of over 42 cells. If you even read the abstract of the paper, you would know this. I'm beginning to think you read the title and stopped there - could you at least try to read the whole article?

In other words: "The mechanism was already there, and we think evolution caused it and created multicellularity."

Back up this claim. Nothing you've said thus far shows any evidence for this claim.

So really, all the journal article does is assume that yeast evolved adaptive group mechanism. The funny thing is, if I claim that yeast is actually devolving from multicellularity, my claim is just as credible as the journal's claim. Zero empirical evidence or scientific explanation is provided for that assumption. So if you are going to use that article as an argument, it would be circular logic.

It's an experiment that you can do yourself if you have the proper equipment. If evolution in a test tube is not enough for you, then what kind of evidence do you expect?

"Cuz it have an advantage" does not answer or imply how it happened. It does not provide any sort of a scientific physical mechanism or sequence of steps. It does not even show how randomness is more plausible than intelligence philosophically.

I think it was quite simple in how it demonstrated natural selection. If mutation and natural selection is true, then yeast cells will undergo slight changes during their reproductive cycle, and when said changes benefit their survival, these changes will become more common as they are passed down. If it is not true, then the yeast will not pass down changes which benefit its survival in a certain environment. It is quite clear which of these two things happened. As for the physical mechanism, are you trying to deny genetics at this point? All yeast cells exist as haploid cells at some point in their lives. This means that there are no chromosome pairs to cover up certain traits. These were novel mutations that didn't exist before, since if they were already there, we would know.

This is equivalent to a historical hypothesis. I asked for scientific evidence, thus my points stand.

All I am asking for is evidence that any known evolutionary mechanism is powerful and coordinated enough to allow a single cell to be responsible for all the amazing life forms on this planet. Or something that shows that dinosaurs can become humming birds, or that raccoons which previously were fish can become whales.

What, so you can ignore it again?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2013 5:05:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/12/2013 10:14:25 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/12/2013 5:51:54 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/11/2013 5:39:16 PM, drhead wrote:
At 12/11/2013 3:59:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
The problem is that your critical skepticism regarding evolutionary matters is lost. You are willing to believe anything as long as it involves evolution.

So for you to demonstrate that you do not use unnatural selective skepticism: Show scientifically that species are capable of forming organs and biological systems, or show that a unicellular organism can develop into a multicellular organism.

Here's one of the sources I used on a research paper I wrote recently. This scientific journal article shows a unicellular organism developing into a multicellular organism:

http://www.tc.umn.edu...

To repeat what has been said many times (and ignored), the evidence is out there if you look for it.

Lool. This reminds me of Ptolemy's theory where weird trajectories were proposed in order to maintain the idea that the earth is geocentric.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com...




All the report does is:

1- Explore adaptive mechanism of yeast cells in an environment.
2- Claims that natural selection created this mechanism because it is advantageous within said environment. (Cuz its an advantage, and everything happens due to having an advantage!)

I would like to hear your explanation for how this is not natural selection.

Natural selection simply fails as the foundation for evolution when considering the steps it takes to develop something.
What is the evolutionary advantage of a 3/10000 of a heart? Being a tumor? Did generations have to carry a growing tumor for thousands of years until it becomes functional?

3- Claim that yeast is evolving or was the stepping stone into multicellularity.

Multicellularity is thought to have independently evolved at least 25 times. The latter claim was certainly not made.

Red Herring for the first part. As for the second part, it was said:
" Yeast evolved from a unicellular ancestor". Multicellularity evolving is an assumption without scientific evidence.

According to an interview:
"We"re seeing the evolution of increased cell size as a way of getting larger clusters, without requiring the yeast to essentially wait for mutations that increase the number of cells within the cluster," Ratcliff said.

http://science-fare.com...

Cells only became larger for purposes of increasing cluster size after they were in clusters of over 42 cells. If you even read the abstract of the paper, you would know this. I'm beginning to think you read the title and stopped there - could you at least try to read the whole article?

I'd rather not answer loaded questions.
What makes you think I did not read the paper?

In other words: "The mechanism was already there, and we think evolution caused it and created multicellularity."

Back up this claim. Nothing you've said thus far shows any evidence for this claim.

Relates to the quote from the interview above. They did not witness the development of this mechanism via. evolutionary means. Neither did mutations factor with the experiment. They simply think this mechanism developed, and that it have something to do with transforming into a multicellular organism, if such process even exists.

So really, all the journal article does is assume that yeast evolved adaptive group mechanism. The funny thing is, if I claim that yeast is actually devolving from multicellularity, my claim is just as credible as the journal's claim. Zero empirical evidence or scientific explanation is provided for that assumption. So if you are going to use that article as an argument, it would be circular logic.

It's an experiment that you can do yourself if you have the proper equipment. If evolution in a test tube is not enough for you, then what kind of evidence do you expect?

You just "Backed up my claim" by saying I could do this at home. So it is already there and I do not have to wait for many years of observation for an unknown evolutionary process to develop that mechanism. Yey!
I am more than willing to accept an experiment that involves the fundamental claims of the ToE in a test tube. However, this experiment did not include the development of a trait that leads to multicellularity. They pronounced that this is the first step in a journey, but they have yet to demonstrate that a step was made in the first place.

"Cuz it have an advantage" does not answer or imply how it happened. It does not provide any sort of a scientific physical mechanism or sequence of steps. It does not even show how randomness is more plausible than intelligence philosophically.

I think it was quite simple in how it demonstrated natural selection. If mutation and natural selection is true, then yeast cells will undergo slight changes during their reproductive cycle, and when said changes benefit their survival, these changes will become more common as they are passed down. If it is not true, then the yeast will not pass down changes which benefit its survival in a certain environment. It is quite clear which of these two things happened. As for the physical mechanism, are you trying to deny genetics at this point? All yeast cells exist as haploid cells at some point in their lives. This means that there are no chromosome pairs to cover up certain traits. These were novel mutations that didn't exist before, since if they were already there, we would know.

Be definition, when there is selection, you select from something pre-existing. According to the claims of evolution, evolutionary mechanism can make even biological systems and multicellularity to start existing to be selected in the first place. Since the adaptive mechanism was already there, there is no scientific evidence of a mechanism that developed it or is developing it into multicellularity.
Other than that, I agree. However, you have to demonstrate that the changes can include the development of something more complex, like multicellularity or organ creation.

This is equivalent to a historical hypothesis. I asked for scientific evidence, thus my points stand.

All I am asking for is evidence that any known evolutionary mechanism is powerful and coordinated enough to allow a single cell to be responsible for all the amazing life forms on this planet. Or something that shows that dinosaurs can become humming birds, or that raccoons which previously were fish can become whales.

What, so you can ignore it again?

Loaded question that assumes you provided scientific evidence about the existence of a mechanism with the previously stated criteria.