The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Had a look at the doco. The interviewer is a dingbat. Obviously the fosil record exists right now to observe and derive accurate conclusions from. Too much of a numbskull obviously to see facts according to observation.

jinx wrote:This preview looks good a documentary where a bunch of biologists who believe in evolutionism are interviewed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gv2xbXkAfs

One wonders how many interviewees they rejected because they were Christian scientists who accepted God and evolution? The film obviously had an agenda and was not an unbiased documentary, it was sponsored by creationists, who are anything but objective.

Bernard wrote:Had a look at the doco. The interviewer is a dingbat. Obviously the fosil record exists right now to observe and derive accurate conclusions from. Too much of a numbskull obviously to see facts according to observation.

The interviewer wanted a current observable example of evolution, they only need to look at dogs. Dog breeds, breed true, Beagles breed Beagles, Akita's breed Akita's. This is selection in operation, and proves the basic premise of evolution.

MMasz wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

jinx wrote:You are evo indoctrinated. If there is ONE biologist on earth who does not believe in evolutionism you are wrong. Biology was started by a creationist (Pasteur). Movie looks good, people who believe in evolutionism possibly questioning their own beliefs for the first time.

I defy you to name a single reputable biologist at any major university in the world who denies that evolution is the basis and very essence of biology itself.

Dean Kenyon, BSc in physics from the University of Chicago in 1961 and a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University

William Dembski, U of IL, Chicago, B.A., M.S., Ph.D, mathematics; Univ of Chicago- M.S., Ph.D. - physics; M.I.T.- post doctorate mathematics

Michael Behe. UPenn, Ph.D. biochemistry; post doctorate genetics at the NIH

OK?

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The number of scientists could be well in the hundreds. I find these people of people fascinating. Why? Consider the following scenario:

A geologist comes home work after studying samples of sedimentary rocks. He is writing a very credible scientific paper for peer review and publication. Perhaps it might be on oil deposits and the Jurassic period. So he retires to his study to work on the paper. On one side of his desk is the scientific paper in question and on the other side of his desk is a manuscript for a book he is writing as well. The book is for publication on the behalf of a YEC organization. He is up to the chapter whereby the subterranean waters exploded from under the earth 5000 years and caused the single giant super continent to break up into the various continents we have today.

Oddly enough he don't see the absolute contradiction and the absurdity that exists on the table in front of him.

thedoc wrote:

Bernard wrote:Had a look at the doco. The interviewer is a dingbat. Obviously the fosil record exists right now to observe and derive accurate conclusions from. Too much of a numbskull obviously to see facts according to observation.

The interviewer wanted a current observable example of evolution, they only need to look at dogs. Dog breeds, breed true, Beagles breed Beagles, Akita's breed Akita's. This is selection in operation, and proves the basic premise of evolution.

Dog breeds as evidence for evolution? Not quite. You can cross-breed a cocker spaniel and a poodle a get a cock-a-poo; a schnauzer and poodle and get a schnoodle; the Havanese, the Doberman is a designer dog, etc.

New breeds and variations of existing breeds can be made by selectively breeding dogs with similar traits to create new breeds. That is not evolution.

It is evidence for evolution to see adaptation and the passing on of traits. It's just not evidence that these occurrences are responsible for evolution.

Bernard wrote:It is evidence for evolution to see adaptation and the passing on of traits. It's just not evidence that these occurrences are responsible for evolution.

True, but one needs to parse out “evolution” so not to equivocate microevolution (adaptation within a species) with macroevolution (molecules to man). Few will disagree with microevolution as it is common, but one cannot simply extrapolate macroevolution from microevolution.

We can assume macro-evolution given the amount of evidence and research now available.

MMasz wrote:... so not to equivocate microevolution (adaptation within a species) with macroevolution (molecules to man).

It's not equivocation if there are no grounds for such a distinction.

Can you explain the grounds on which the distinction might be made between micro- and macro-evolution? Because all I am seeing is a false dichotomy between evolution that creationists cannot deny and evolution they refuse to acknowledge.

Example of a micro-evolution: the idea if God.

mickthinks wrote:

MMasz wrote:... so not to equivocate microevolution (adaptation within a species) with macroevolution (molecules to man).

It's not equivocation if there are no grounds for such a distinction.

Can you explain the grounds on which the distinction might be made between micro- and macro-evolution? Because all I am seeing is a false dichotomy between evolution that creationists cannot deny and evolution they refuse to acknowledge.

Using an example from genetics. Take a heterozygous brown eye dominant couple. Their offspring will be: 1 homozygous brown eye, 2 hetero brown eye, and one homozygous recessive blue eye.

2nd generation: 2 homozygous recessive blue eyes. all offspring will have be homo blue eye. The brown eye dominant gene is gone. That’s microevolution, i.e., adaptation in a species. It’s still an eye, nevermind the same species.

Sorry, macroevolution is a fable. I would go so far to say that had Darwin known of the complexity of the cell or about DNA he would not have published his work.

MMasz wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Bernard wrote:Had a look at the doco. The interviewer is a dingbat. Obviously the fosil record exists right now to observe and derive accurate conclusions from. Too much of a numbskull obviously to see facts according to observation.

The interviewer wanted a current observable example of evolution, they only need to look at dogs. Dog breeds, breed true, Beagles breed Beagles, Akita's breed Akita's. This is selection in operation, and proves the basic premise of evolution.

Dog breeds as evidence for evolution? Not quite. You can cross-breed a cocker spaniel and a poodle a get a cock-a-poo; a schnauzer and poodle and get a schnoodle; the Havanese, the Doberman is a designer dog, etc.

New breeds and variations of existing breeds can be made by selectively breeding dogs with similar traits to create new breeds. That is not evolution.

Oh but it is, a part of evolution, it's just that man takes the possibility away and replaces it with probability, along with caring for the health of the animals, as with sheltering, feeding, and doctoring them. Make no mistake, it is a model where chance is somewhat eliminated. Environment is a large part of evolution, just ask the epigenesists.

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance.

Darwinian evolution does not claim 'Creation by Chance', there is a purpose to evolution and that is survival of the fittest.
No one can know that evolution has purpose, nor can they prove it. It just may appear as such, from some particular perspective. A long dead man, wrote a now old book.
Evolution by 'random chance' is a 'red herring' thrown up and disproved by creationists that adds nothing to the debate.
And you 'know' this, how? Who are you to say, Doc? As far as I'm concerned, our creation can only ever be, either purposeful, or by chance, or else there is no argument, and the age old sides of opposition, are actually superimposed.
Creationists have no valid argument against evolution.
Some may actually accept evolution as fact.

Doc, please understand that as far as I'm concerned, 'everything' is subject to revision.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance.

Darwinian evolution does not claim 'Creation by Chance', there is a purpose to evolution and that is survival of the fittest.
No one can know that evolution has purpose, nor can they prove it. It just may appear as such, from some particular perspective. A long dead man, wrote a now old book.
Evolution by 'random chance' is a 'red herring' thrown up and disproved by creationists that adds nothing to the debate.
And you 'know' this, how? Who are you to say, Doc? As far as I'm concerned, our creation can only ever be, either purposeful, or by chance, or else there is no argument, and the age old sides of opposition, are actually superimposed.
Creationists have no valid argument against evolution.
Some may actually accept evolution as fact.

[color=#FF0000]Doc, please understand that as far as I'm concerned, 'everything' is subject to revision.[/color]

I agree with your statement about revision, and can only hope that my own statements are based on the latest revisions.

Perhaps "purpose" is the wrong word as it implies some intelligence directing the course of evolution. Let me say that evolution has a direction, that of the most suited to survive do so, and if that leads to change, that change will create new species when that is what is best suited to survive.

'Random chance' does play a part, but only in making variations within a species, but some have erroneously suggested that 'random chance' has created new and complex structures. It has not, random chance has only created variations that have then been available for different uses than the original structure, when that has been an advantage. Most variations do no harm and exist without effect, some are harmful and are eliminated.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: In truth I have always leaned toward the possibility of creation of purposeful intellect, as opposed to that of creation by chance.

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

thedoc wrote:Darwinian evolution does not claim 'Creation by Chance', there is a purpose to evolution and that is survival of the fittest.
No one can know that evolution has purpose, nor can they prove it. It just may appear as such, from some particular perspective. A long dead man, wrote a now old book.
Evolution by 'random chance' is a 'red herring' thrown up and disproved by creationists that adds nothing to the debate.
And you 'know' this, how? Who are you to say, Doc? As far as I'm concerned, our creation can only ever be, either purposeful, or by chance, or else there is no argument, and the age old sides of opposition, are actually superimposed.
Creationists have no valid argument against evolution.
Some may actually accept evolution as fact.

[color=#FF0000]Doc, please understand that as far as I'm concerned, 'everything' is subject to revision.[/color]

I agree with your statement about revision, and can only hope that my own statements are based on the latest revisions.

Perhaps "purpose" is the wrong word as it implies some intelligence directing the course of evolution. Let me say that evolution has a direction, that of the most suited to survive do so, and if that leads to change, that change will create new species when that is what is best suited to survive.

'Random chance' does play a part, but only in making variations within a species, but some have erroneously suggested that 'random chance' has created new and complex structures. It has not, random chance has only created variations that have then been available for different uses than the original structure, when that has been an advantage. Most variations do no harm and exist without effect, some are harmful and are eliminated.

It was random chance that caused humans to exist in the first place, if you are not a creationist. Just look at all the variables, that by chance joined as the third metamorphosis from the star, known by some, as sun, and those that have led to us two, contemplating it via electrons. One hell of a lot of chance, if you be a non creationist, of course.

How about randomly scattered elements, and the chance of their impact, creating any particular group, as it pertains to human differentiation. As well as weather patterns, and varying degrees of cosmic radiation, to name a few.