Total Posts:246|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The scientific consensus on Evolution

Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)
Meh!
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2016 4:46:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
And the other 2% own churches right?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"
This space for rent.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.
Meh!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.

And you're saying a lot more than you realize about why you accept evolution. It's an argument from authority for you. And that's reasonable. But you should be honest with yourself that you believe evolution because the right people said so, not because you have seen scientific proof of it.

And sometimes, as I point - the smart people are wrong. Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.
This space for rent.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:13:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.

And you're saying a lot more than you realize about why you accept evolution. It's an argument from authority for you. And that's reasonable. But you should be honest with yourself that you believe evolution because the right people said so, not because you have seen scientific proof of it.

And sometimes, as I point - the smart people are wrong. Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:46:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.

And you're saying a lot more than you realize about why you accept evolution. It's an argument from authority for you. And that's reasonable. But you should be honest with yourself that you believe evolution because the right people said so, not because you have seen scientific proof of it.

And sometimes, as I point - the smart people are wrong. Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

It's the same argument I have for why you can't reach the moon by jumping. The physics just aren't there. If you want to claim biology is natural, then it has to be subject to the constraints of physical behaviors.

The burden of proof in on the evolution camp. If they want to claim A produces B, they have to be able to at least show that it's possible. And the evolution camp is completely unable to demonstrate that mutation and selection can produce an ecosystem. The argument is entirely one of circumstantial evidence, and the evidence is equally well explained by design. A designer also uses similar or identical structures for similar products, thus explaining the 'same only different' characteristics of the species perfectly well.

The thing is, it's a kind of a joke, it really is. I don't often say that because so many people have such romantic admiration for anything called science that they just choke on such an assessment. But it's true, I'm afraid. It's the all time classic example of confirmation bias. It's a graduate level study in logical fallacies.
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 2:58:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
No it's not equally "explained" by a designer, because who designed the designer?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:05:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:46:45 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/5/2016 2:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.

And you're saying a lot more than you realize about why you accept evolution. It's an argument from authority for you. And that's reasonable. But you should be honest with yourself that you believe evolution because the right people said so, not because you have seen scientific proof of it.

And sometimes, as I point - the smart people are wrong. Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

It's the same argument I have for why you can't reach the moon by jumping. The physics just aren't there. If you want to claim biology is natural, then it has to be subject to the constraints of physical behaviors.

The burden of proof in on the evolution camp. If they want to claim A produces B, they have to be able to at least show that it's possible. And the evolution camp is completely unable to demonstrate that mutation and selection can produce an ecosystem. The argument is entirely one of circumstantial evidence, and the evidence is equally well explained by design. A designer also uses similar or identical structures for similar products, thus explaining the 'same only different' characteristics of the species perfectly well.

The thing is, it's a kind of a joke, it really is. I don't often say that because so many people have such romantic admiration for anything called science that they just choke on such an assessment. But it's true, I'm afraid. It's the all time classic example of confirmation bias. It's a graduate level study in logical fallacies.

So you don't have evidence to the contrary and assert that we don't have evidence in favor, noted.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:13:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

You're talking about religion here. You can make up anything you want, call it a "religion", and when observations don't match your religion you resort to "God works in mysterious ways!"
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:42:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:13:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

You're talking about religion here. You can make up anything you want, call it a "religion", and when observations don't match your religion you resort to "God works in mysterious ways!"

Yes, evolution works in mysterious ways. My point exactly. Evolution works in mysterious ways that cannot be reproduced experimentally.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:47:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:58:32 PM, user13579 wrote:
No it's not equally "explained" by a designer, because who designed the designer?

So today you're the evo parrot, eh? Who designed Steve Jobs, and how does that question relate to whether Steve Jobs dreamed up the smartphone concept?

This is the basic principle of deconstructing a problem. We'd never solve ANYTHING if everybody had to answer all questions before they answered the ones they could answer.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 3:51:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
the evolution camp is completely unable to demonstrate that mutation and selection can produce an ecosystem.

"In populations that contain many different beneficial mutants, there will be substantial variation in fitness within the population. This variation will be acted on by selection."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another understood concept of which you were unaware.

The argument is entirely one of circumstantial evidence, and the evidence is equally well explained by design.

Really, explain how new life that has originated in our lifetimes is indicative of a designer.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:03:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 3:51:51 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
the evolution camp is completely unable to demonstrate that mutation and selection can produce an ecosystem.

"In populations that contain many different beneficial mutants, there will be substantial variation in fitness within the population. This variation will be acted on by selection."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Another understood concept of which you were unaware.


You want to start again, really? Dude, I understand the friggin concept, you gotta get out of whatever bunker you're in.

I'm going to explain my perspective one last time, and if you're not willing to be real about this I'm not going to keep having this pissing contest with you. So: Darwin observed small scale changes in reproduction. He proposed that small scale changes can accumulate over time, in a virtually unlimited way, to produce every feature and species extant in the ecosystem, from "one or several original [and presumably simple,] forms".

So, the small scale changes occur, and accumulate to the extent they are observed to accumulate. But they have not been observed to produce any significant novelty. Shoot, one of the highly touted demonstrations is e coli developing the ability to digest nylon. I trust that even you can see some daylight between that and say, the emergence of the human brain?
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm going to explain my perspective one last time, and if you're not willing to be real about this I'm not going to keep having this pissing contest with you. So: Darwin observed small scale changes in reproduction.

Your perception of small is off...
Reproductive isolation, what Darwin observed, is not a small scale change, in fact it is speciation.
Species can potentially/actually reproduce viable offspring with each other.
If they could at one point reproduce with each other, and can't now, that's a large scale, not a small scale change.

He proposed that small scale changes can accumulate over time, in a virtually unlimited way,

Straw man. No one said that accumulation was virtually unlimited, in fact, vetted success of changes will slow accumulation of changes.

to produce every feature and species extant in the ecosystem, from "one or several original [and presumably simple,] forms".

yeah, you have to walk a foot before you can walk a mile.

So, the small scale changes occur, and accumulate to the extent they are observed to accumulate. But they have not been observed to produce any significant novelty.

This is you restating that there are no even prime numbers.
Polyploidy and other mutations produce significant novelty.

Shoot, one of the highly touted demonstrations is e coli developing the ability to digest nylon. I trust that even you can see some daylight between that and say, the emergence of the human brain?

Nope.
The emergence of the human brain happened in a step-by-step manner just like the emergence of a able-to-digest-nylon digestive system.
What am i missing here?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 4:59:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

If the AAAS is militantly pro-Evolution, then one should expect their members to be mostly the same. So, it proves nothing, other than an Atheist's abuse of statistics to prove themselves to be monkeys (which, ironically, helps make their case). Even if we're talking about non-AAAS scientists, Political Correctness in scientific fields goes far to eliminating descent. Anyone with any sensibility would be alarmed if there were "98% agreement" on any controversial issue.

You're nakedly committing the Error of Appeal to Authority.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 5:18:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:43:08 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...
What am i missing here?

Just that we're wasting our time. I'm not the guy you want to talk to.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 5:21:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Just that we're wasting our time. I'm not the guy you want to talk to.

I'll take that as your concession.
You finally get it...so proud.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 5:38:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 4:59:28 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

If the AAAS is militantly pro-Evolution, then one should expect their members to be mostly the same. So, it proves nothing, other than an Atheist's abuse of statistics to prove themselves to be monkeys (which, ironically, helps make their case). Even if we're talking about non-AAAS scientists, Political Correctness in scientific fields goes far to eliminating descent. Anyone with any sensibility would be alarmed if there were "98% agreement" on any controversial issue.

You're nakedly committing the Error of Appeal to Authority.

There's no controversy, except for some of the exact details of how evolution happened.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 2,019
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 6:08:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Now be honest User13579 - its not just 'some of the exact details' we evos haven't worked out - we hardly know any details at all. We have a framework - mutation and natural selection - which we believe can explain how brains, mammalian reproduction and gall bladders etc came about but we have next to bugger all in terms of direct evidence for any of it, except relatively minor phenotypical modifications.

I think the indirect and circumstantial evidence for evolution is plenty good enough to not worry that not much has been 'fleshed out' in detail. But to be honest, if v3 doesn't feel that way I'm not sure I'd blame him! I just wish he'd get his ideas about information more inline with the rest of us...
.
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 7:42:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

Define evolution...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 7:48:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 5:38:15 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:59:28 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

If the AAAS is militantly pro-Evolution, then one should expect their members to be mostly the same. So, it proves nothing, other than an Atheist's abuse of statistics to prove themselves to be monkeys (which, ironically, helps make their case). Even if we're talking about non-AAAS scientists, Political Correctness in scientific fields goes far to eliminating descent. Anyone with any sensibility would be alarmed if there were "98% agreement" on any controversial issue.

You're nakedly committing the Error of Appeal to Authority.

There's no controversy, except for some of the exact details of how evolution happened.

A little something, from back in the day: http://www.metrolyrics.com...
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 7:52:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 7:48:10 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/5/2016 5:38:15 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 4:59:28 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

If the AAAS is militantly pro-Evolution, then one should expect their members to be mostly the same. So, it proves nothing, other than an Atheist's abuse of statistics to prove themselves to be monkeys (which, ironically, helps make their case). Even if we're talking about non-AAAS scientists, Political Correctness in scientific fields goes far to eliminating descent. Anyone with any sensibility would be alarmed if there were "98% agreement" on any controversial issue.

You're nakedly committing the Error of Appeal to Authority.

There's no controversy, except for some of the exact details of how evolution happened.

A little something, from back in the day: http://www.metrolyrics.com...

Do you have evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution? No? I didn't think you did.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 7:59:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 7:52:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
...

Do you have evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution? No? I didn't think you did.

You're a riot! You do this brilliantly, I gotta hand it to you.

I have threatened (to myself) to get another avatar and take the evo side, just for fun. But I like your style, just take the opposite side every other day. Stay close enough to the 50 yard line that not everybody notices.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:01:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 7:42:29 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

Define evolution...

Well, evolution happens all the time, but you can't see it because it takes 100 million years. Does that help?
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:05:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 7:59:50 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/5/2016 7:52:41 PM, user13579 wrote:
...

Do you have evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution? No? I didn't think you did.

You're a riot! You do this brilliantly, I gotta hand it to you.

I have threatened (to myself) to get another avatar and take the evo side, just for fun. But I like your style, just take the opposite side every other day. Stay close enough to the 50 yard line that not everybody notices.

It's that whole multiple universe thing.

No, actually I've always been on the "evo side" but sometimes I find errors in the reasoning of other "evos". But ok, I'll just attack your position all the time from now on if you would prefer it.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:10:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 2:13:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/5/2016 1:55:31 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/4/2016 8:37:09 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 5/4/2016 5:54:26 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/3/2016 4:24:28 AM, Axonly wrote:
http://www.pewinternet.org...

According to Pew research, 98% of scientists (From the American Association for the Advancement of Science) support evolutionary theory.

(This is here more to debunk creationist who claim there is disagreement about whether the theory of evolution is correct or not)

So, just curious, what would be the point at which there was disagreement? 3%?

Hey, I get it, but I think every generation has some fabulously wrong bit of conventional wisdom they have to reject. A couple of hundred years ago it was thought that it was ok to own humans if their skin was dark enough. And the idea of enslaving black people because they were black - that was a new thing in western history, born of the market for processed cane sugar. So it's not like there is some linear historical progress towards enlightenment. Don't forget we fought two world wars last century, and saw millions purged for utopian fantasies. Sometimes society has to back out of a dead end, and I think evolution is one of them. And it's generally ugly for society. Whole industries don't say "Oh, ok we were wrong about this mutation stuff, we'll just find new jobs now"

Yeah, you aren't better at Biology than the majority of Biologists.

And you're saying a lot more than you realize about why you accept evolution. It's an argument from authority for you. And that's reasonable. But you should be honest with yourself that you believe evolution because the right people said so, not because you have seen scientific proof of it.

And sometimes, as I point - the smart people are wrong. Evolution is the quintessential ivory tower kind of thing - it's a bunch of monks calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever needing to actually see an angel. It's precisely the sort of groupthink that can go terribly wrong.

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

I haven't seen one yet. lol
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 8:10:38 PM, user13579 wrote:
...

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

I haven't seen one yet. lol

That's a pretty extraordinary statement, really. So what are you doing here, if you're not reading any of the posts?
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 8:54:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 8:46:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/5/2016 8:10:38 PM, user13579 wrote:
...

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

I haven't seen one yet. lol

That's a pretty extraordinary statement, really. So what are you doing here, if you're not reading any of the posts?

You have not yet posted a single piece of evidence falsifying the theory of evolution and the origin of species by natural selection acting on random mutation.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2016 9:11:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/5/2016 8:54:35 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/5/2016 8:46:01 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/5/2016 8:10:38 PM, user13579 wrote:
...

So do you have an actual argument for why it is wrong?

I haven't seen one yet. lol

That's a pretty extraordinary statement, really. So what are you doing here, if you're not reading any of the posts?

You have not yet posted a single piece of evidence falsifying the theory of evolution and the origin of species by natural selection acting on random mutation.

There is not a single piece of evidence that organisms evolve by natural selection acting on random mutations.