Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I disagree. I quoted TalkOrigins, which is a fairly well-respected site on evolution. IMO an article on TO carries more weight than the opinions of you or Exlax.

It is a newsgroup. It is random people, so you are misguided in thinking there is more credibility there than I or others have.

You have no basis of comparison, you don't actually have any idea of how much people here know because you don't listen.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...oscales_01

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection

---

First, I said I don't accept macroevolution because I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. This isn't compelling scientific evidence.

Second, you give a straight-line scenario, yet below acknowledge that changes don't go solidly in one direction.

That's because he's too busy J'O to AiG articles, ignoring the same information every time it's presented to him, and changing lanes without looking while watching Madigascar in his raised truck.

[Bad Wolf]

That's because he's too busy J'O to AiG articles, ignoring the same information every time it's presented to him, and changing lanes without looking while watching Madigascar in his raised truck.

I already made that reference in another thread...... he didn't get it.

[Esquilax]

Feel free to support that.

Easy. Very easy.

Maybe, maybe not.

"Nuh uh," isn't an answer, especially when we're talking about natural selection, which is easily observable.

First, I said I don't accept macroevolution because I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. This isn't compelling scientific evidence.

So now we're moving the goalposts? I'm making the case that micro and macro aren't meaningful divisions to draw, and you're just going back to macro crap like I'm supposed to give a damn?

Second, you give a straight-line scenario, yet below acknowledge that changes don't go solidly in one direction.

Whether they go in one direction or regress back, the changes still occur, and more importantly, some changes do go solidly in one direction, while at the same time branching out into numerous other potential forms, as demonstrated by fossil and genetic evidence all over the place. It would literally take up more space than the character limit on this window for me to go through it all, but the fact that you're still insisting that there's no evidence, while demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the subject, just goes to prove my initial point in the OP.

It's not my problem that you don't really understand how evolution and natural selection work, and that your only argument back is "it doesn't work that way in every case." Well, shit, we already knew that. But it works that way in so many cases that to pick out the few (or better yet, to fantasize about abstractions of cases so as to avoid doing even that much work) is simply ridiculous.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I know, he was too busy talking about the oversized vehicle he was buying to watch Madagascar in.

[John V]

Easy. Very easy.

Yes, I've read those and more, but they don't support your claim that this is "something the skinks have never been able to do before."

So now we're moving the goalposts?

No, that was my original position.

I'm making the case that micro and macro aren't meaningful divisions to draw, and you're just going back to macro crap like I'm supposed to give a damn?

I've already noted that your position regarding macro/micro is not unanimously held among biologists. In response you've attempted a burden shift/argument from ignorance fallacy, claiming that unless I can prove macroevolution-specific mechanisms, your position stands. In another current thread you're protesting that gemini is using that tactic, yet you use it yourself.

Whether they go in one direction or regress back, the changes still occur, and more importantly, some changes do go solidly in one direction, while at the same time branching out into numerous other potential forms, as demonstrated by fossil and genetic evidence all over the place. It would literally take up more space than the character limit on this window for me to go through it all, but the fact that you're still insisting that there's no evidence, while demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the subject, just goes to prove my initial point in the OP.

I'm not insisting that there's no evidence. I said I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. That doesn't mean it's not out there. Just show it to me.

It's not my problem that you don't really understand how evolution and natural selection work, and that your only argument back is "it doesn't work that way in every case." Well, shit, we already knew that. But it works that way in so many cases that to pick out the few (or better yet, to fantasize about abstractions of cases so as to avoid doing even that much work) is simply ridiculous.

You're correct that it's not your problem. It's also not your problem that you can't seem to present scientific evidence proving your position. It's just not a problem at all.

---

I already made that reference in another thread...... he didn't get it.

Still don't...but we did end up going with the Town & Country. It's pretty nice.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[Anomalocaris]

For once, the right answer really is "God".

[Esquilax]

Yes, I've read those and more, but they don't support your claim that this is "something the skinks have never been able to do before."

So it's your claim that these two otherwise identical groups of skinks have existed in parallel forever, and that the existence of intermediate variations on the same skink that retain the eggshells despite giving live birth for noticeably longer is just a coincidence?

I've already noted that your position regarding macro/micro is not unanimously held among biologists.

Unanimity doesn't matter, as there's rarely complete consensus over any area of science, but leave it to a theist to demand absolutes.

In response you've attempted a burden shift/argument from ignorance fallacy, claiming that unless I can prove macroevolution-specific mechanisms, your position stands. In another current thread you're protesting that gemini is using that tactic, yet you use it yourself.

My position stands because it's the one that's observed, the one with the evidence behind it. We can demonstrably show that small changes occur and are retained within populations, and it's simple logic that one plus one equals two even when it's applied to mutations within a population. You're attempting to inject an additional layer of complexity into the proceedings, a positive claim that, though one plus one does equal two, once the number gets to ninety-nine there's something preventing it from reaching one hundred, and I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable John, but that's something you are required to provide evidence for before it becomes remotely believable.

The fact that, so far, rather than simply cutting the Gordian Knot and presenting evidence that microevolution is somehow prevented from continuing once it reaches the species threshold, you instead opt to sling around misapplied accusations of fallacies at me, is rather telling.

I'm not insisting that there's no evidence. I said I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. That doesn't mean it's not out there. Just show it to me.

Compelling evidence of... what, exactly? That your positive claim isn't true? Now who's indulging in an argument from ignorance?

You're correct that it's not your problem. It's also not your problem that you can't seem to present scientific evidence proving your position. It's just not a problem at all.

Oh look, there it is again!

[downbeatplumb]

Second, you haven't proven that changes go solidly in one direction. Going back to my example, the third generation could have 75% brown eye genes and 25% blue eye genes. This would be evolution from the second generation, but it would have gone nowhere from the first generation.

Well the above comment shows that this theist has no understanding of evolution at all.

Once you understand the underlying mechanism you discover evolution can take you lots of different ways and for lots of different reasons. Sexual, food, predation or sometimes just luck.

Oh wait I get it, I bet he thinks that there is an end game to things changing and that end is us.

Oh tell me this is true cos that would be so funny.

[Tonus]

Is it possible to deny evolution and understand what it is at the same time?

There were two things in particular that muddled the issue for me, although they were the result of the same factor: the Watchtower Society is very strict about JWs not reading anything that might lead them astray. It is a point they drive home constantly and they make clear that it's very high on their list of offenses that will get you in trouble. As a good JW I went along with it, and therefore I only had their side of the story. But hey, they had god's ear, so it had to be the truth...

1- The micro/macro issue was a real problem, because I saw them as two distinct "versions" of evolution. Micro-evolution (small changes within a species) was undeniable because it had been observed, but macro-evolution (large changes that turn one species into a different one) was too far-fetched to accept, and had no evidence besides. I can't stress enough that this is the way I (and my fellow JWs, and many theists I have known) saw the issue-- we felt that macro-evolution did NOT describe the effect of many micro changes over time.

This is the kind of misunderstanding that leads to stuff like crocoduck and "a cat has never given birth to a dog." This is what many theists actually believe macro-evolution refers to, and no one is ever going to accept that as being possible. So it's easy to believe that scientists are blinded by their desire to "disprove god" to the extent that they accept ridiculous and unscientific "theories."

2- Quote mining. The JW's creation book is rife with out-of-context quotes meant to give a completely different meaning to a person's words (including the famous partial quote from Darwin regarding the evolution of the eye). Quote-mining is designed to give the impression that scientists recognize how outrageous the theory of evolution is, which makes you wonder why they continue to teach it as "fact." The only possibility is that they are being mislead by Satan into trying to deny the existence of god, to the extent that they prefer to promote utterly ridiculous ideas.

Once I stepped outside of that bubble, the truth about evolution became clearer and the theories made more sense. I think that the micro/macro divide will continue to be used by theists because it represents one of the few gaps that they can work with. "It's just a theory" will be used by the most ignorant of the bunch, but I think it's so easy to show why that is wrong that it will slowly be relegated to the same pile as "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Which is to say, people still use it, but it immediately lets you know that you're dealing with someone who is either ignorant or a moron.