Evolution in action.

[Gemini]

That's what I was wondering, I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that the article was a falsification of evolution or evidence for it. That's what you get though when your talk about science is incoherent, people have to double take when you actually agree with it.

I never got enough information out of an Arkilogue quantum-bafflegab post to know whether he disagrees with science or not. It's rather like he raided a textbook for terms, loaded them in a shotgun, and then pulled the trigger.

[Pat Mustard]

That's what I was wondering, I wasn't sure whether you were arguing that the article was a falsification of evolution or evidence for it. That's what you get though when your talk about science is incoherent, people have to double take when you actually agree with it.

I never got enough information out of an Arkilogue quantum-bafflegab post to know whether he disagrees with science or not. It's rather like he raided a textbook for terms, loaded them in a shotgun, and then pulled the trigger.

Oh, he disagrees with it alright, nobody could believe that electromagnetism worked differently before James Clerk Maxwell and accept scientific validity. It's just that he's too chicken to come out and admit it, just like he's too chicken to admit his fundagelical christianity.

[RoadRunner79]

What exactly is your point here?  That science is complex?  You'll dance around any way you can to avoid the obvious conclusion that differential selective pressures on peppered moths resulted in a change of allele frequency in the species.  That conclusion is indisputable.  You're just bringing up irrelevancies to cloud the issue.

Roadrunner's point is that when he disagrees with science, it is science that is wrong. It is a stupid point, at 90 degree variance with reality. But it is his point and he's clinging onto it for dear life.

Not correct.... But when people have to resort to straw men, and trying to assume motivations, rather than discuss..... I take it as a sign of encouragement... Thanks

[LadyForCamus]

Roadrunner's point is that when he disagrees with science, it is science that is wrong. It is a stupid point, at 90 degree variance with reality. But it is his point and he's clinging onto it for dear life.

Not correct.... But when people have to resort to straw men, and trying to assume motivations, rather than discuss..... I take it as a sign of encouragement... Thanks

RR, it's kind of hard NOT to strawman you when you never, EVER define your own position clearly.  Rather, you resort to poking holes at other things in order to avoid any burden of proof for your beliefs.  This is exactly why you feel misrepresented so often.

[RoadRunner79]

Not correct.... But when people have to resort to straw men, and trying to assume motivations, rather than discuss..... I take it as a sign of encouragement... Thanks

RR, it's kind of hard NOT to strawman you when you never, EVER define your own position clearly.  Rather, you resort to poking holes at other things in order to avoid any burden of proof for your beliefs.  This is exactly why you feel misrepresented so often.

You can always ask......

[Pat Mustard]

Roadrunner's point is that when he disagrees with science, it is science that is wrong. It is a stupid point, at 90 degree variance with reality. But it is his point and he's clinging onto it for dear life.

Not correct.... But when people have to resort to straw men, and trying to assume motivations, rather than discuss..... I take it as a sign of encouragement... Thanks

Roadrunner, you don't think evolution is a fact. All the scientific evidence says it is a fact. You are insistent we throw out all the evidence and accept your viewpoint.

I rest my case.

[LadyForCamus]

RR, it's kind of hard NOT to strawman you when you never, EVER define your own position clearly.  Rather, you resort to poking holes at other things in order to avoid any burden of proof for your beliefs.  This is exactly why you feel misrepresented so often.

You can always ask......

I think I just did, in an indirect way. Now, care to provide an answer?

[RoadRunner79]

You can always ask......

I think I just did, in an indirect way.  Now, care to provide an answer?

Well when speaking about evolution, I normally ask what they mean by evolution.
If you mean change and variation which is observed in species and in populations, then I think this is well evidenced, and really don't know anyone who denies this.
If you are talking about universal common descent, changing body plans over time, and developing novel complicated systems; I'm very skeptical. I do think that there is evidence for it, but also reasons against it (neither being conclusive or very strong). I find many of the claims overreaching what the evidence is, and principles that only apply when they confirm what is already believed. The third way in which the term evolution is also part of the problem for the second. I don't believe there is a mechanism which justifies the inferences being made in common descent. To be clearer, I think the neo-darwinian mechanism of random changes plus time is false. I don't think that there is any evidence for it, and that there are good reasons against it. I'll admit, that some of the other camps for a mechanism or the way in which evolution occurs, I have some familiarity with, but have never heard anything that peaked my interest enough to investigate further (as well as not being as popular). Here I would be more skeptical.

I believed in evolution mostly on faith (because I was told to), then I believed in theistic evolution (after I became a Christian), I learned more about evolution, and I am currently at the positions described above. I don't think that evolution is in conflict with my world view, or have ulterior positions that would need me to deny evolution.

[LadyForCamus]

I think I just did, in an indirect way.  Now, care to provide an answer?

Well when speaking about evolution, I normally ask what they mean by evolution.
If you mean change and variation which is observed in species and in populations, then I think this is well evidenced, and really don't know anyone who denies this.
If you are talking about universal common descent, changing body plans over time, and developing novel complicated systems; I'm very skeptical. I do think that there is evidence for it, but also reasons against it (neither being conclusive or very strong). I find many of the claims overreaching what the evidence is, and principles that only apply when they confirm what is already believed. The third way in which the term evolution is also part of the problem for the second. I don't believe there is a mechanism which justifies the inferences being made in common descent. To be clearer, I think the neo-darwinian mechanism of random changes plus time is false. I don't think that there is any evidence for it, and that there are good reasons against it. I'll admit, that some of the other camps for a mechanism or the way in which evolution occurs, I have some familiarity with, but have never heard anything that peaked my interest enough to investigate further (as well as not being as popular). Here I would be more skeptical.

I believed in evolution mostly on faith (because I was told to), then I believed in theistic evolution (after I became a Christian), I learned more about evolution, and I am currently at the positions described above. I don't think that evolution is in conflict with my world view, or have ulterior positions that would need me to deny evolution.

So, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and also not ashamed to admit my ignorance on the details. When you say "theistic evolution," does that mean you are in the Baraminology/macro versus micro evolution camp? I apologize if I am oversimplifying your position. As I said, I am not trained in this particular field of science.

[RoadRunner79]

Well when speaking about evolution, I normally ask what they mean by evolution.
If you mean change and variation which is observed in species and in populations, then I think this is well evidenced, and really don't know anyone who denies this.  
If you are talking about universal common descent, changing body plans over time, and developing novel complicated systems;  I'm very skeptical.  I do think that there is evidence for it, but also reasons against it (neither being conclusive or very strong).  I find many of the claims overreaching what the evidence is, and principles that only apply when they confirm what is already believed.  The third way in which the term evolution is also part of the problem for the second.   I don't believe there is a mechanism which justifies the inferences being made in common descent. To be clearer, I think the neo-darwinian mechanism of random changes plus time is false.   I don't think that there is any evidence for it, and that there are good reasons against it.  I'll admit, that some of the other camps for a mechanism or the way in which evolution occurs, I have some familiarity with, but have never heard anything that peaked my interest enough to investigate further (as well as not being as popular). Here I would be more skeptical.  

I believed in evolution mostly on faith (because I was told to), then I believed in theistic evolution (after I became a Christian), I learned more about evolution, and I am currently at the positions described above.  I don't think that evolution is in conflict with my world view, or have ulterior positions that would need me to deny evolution.

So, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and also not ashamed to admit my ignorance on the details.  When you say "theistic evolution," does that mean you are in the Baraminology/macro versus micro evolution camp? I apologize if I am oversimplifying your position.  As I said, I am not trained in this particular field of science.

I had to look it up... That is the first time I have heard about Bariminolgy. While I am sure that like anything else; theistic evolution has many different nuances and distinctions within the group, it normally refers to those who believe in theism and many of the ways in which the word evolution is framed.

For me, macroevolution would be the line where I become skeptical, and don't think the claims are very well supported. Granted for a naturalist, who believes that the world and life had a beginning, I do understand where many of the claims are the most reasonable explanation.... I also do not think that evolution is falsifiable under this view.