Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I looked at that page briefly. It's full of shit. The part about "limits" where it claims essentially, "There are limits in what we see today, so those limits must exist throughout all of time" JUST before they start talking about the limits of extrapolation, which they had just used to presume that since human skin color in recorded history varied within a specific set of colors that indicates that it can never, ever, ever vary outside of that specific set for all of eternity, is particularly stupid. They simply picked some data set with known variations and claimed these variations constituted some sort of "limit" which, since we've never seen it be violated, can never be violated. That's not how science works. You don't start with the answer and then find something that supports it. That's religion.
I think that you are missing the point. And as an engineer, I can tell you that there are always limits, that you need to work within. And I don't think that they are saying that it is impossible to be otherwise, but there is a pretty good sample size, to say that in humans; melanin varies skin color within a certain range. If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you, to either provide evidence that it has occured, or show your reasons, that you think it is likely (a just so story, doesn't cut it for me).
And if you think they are inccorrect to be saying that their are limits to extrapolation, please explain why?
I have found often, when engineering machine controls, that a customer wants to make a slight modification. Sometimes it is easy, and sometimes, they do not realize the many, many underlying changes that need to take place for what appears to be a simple change (sometimes, it is easier to start over, than to modify). I do think that he is correct, in that the change being extrapolated from what is seen in natural variations is incorrect and hasn't be demonstrated or justified.
Quote:
(August 24, 2016 at 11:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And for those who say that there is no controversy.... good, So I can look at what any scientist says, and go from there, and assume that all other scientist agree with them.
There is no controversy. Evolution is a scientific theory.
There is no controversy among scientists. 99.9% consensus well surpasses the point where there is considered to be any controversy. It is only controversial to literal creationists for whom the science disputes their beliefs. You seem to be confusing "scientific theory" with "absolute indisputable fact". The two are not the same. A scientific theory is not "the way it definitely happened", it's a testable explanation which can make accurate predictions. Electron theory, for example, is likely not perfect, but it is testable and it can make predictions well enough that Intel can design a processor based on how the electrons are predicted to behave. Does that mean all of electrical theory is unquestionable? It certainly does not. In fact, just in my lifetime the electron has been deposed as the smallest particle, now thought to itself be made up of quarks. It wasn't perfect, but it still worked well enough to be used to design amazing things.
The fact of the matter is that evolution is a testable explanation which has been proved to make accurate predictions. Tiktaalik is an example of this. Scientists predicted that if they went to a certain spot on the planet and dug down a certain amount they should find a fossil with features of both fish and amphibians and when they went there and dug they found exactly what evolution predicted would be there. Does this mean the theory of evolution is complete and utterly without error? Of course not. It means that the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have. Contrary to the beliefs of the "teach the controversy" crowd, there is no alternative scientific theory. Evolution is it. It beat out all other scientific theories.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is creationism repackaged. This was proved in the Dover trial. The book, Of Pandas and People, was originally the flagship of intelligent design and during that trial they proved that it started out as a creationist book. Look up "cdesign proponentsists". In one early draft of the book the editor highlighted the word "creationists" and replaced it with "design proponents", but they missed the C at the beginning and ISTS at the end, so the draft said "Cdesign proponentsISTS". And there is only ONE scientist qualified to speak on it academically who I know of who supports intelligent design. That is Michael Behe. During the Dover trial he was forced to admit on the stand that by the definition of "science" he had to use to include intelligent design as being a science, astrology would also be a science. The study of what kind of day I would have based on the stars in the sky on the day I was born is science. Intelligent design is textbook special pleading. We need to lower scientific standards to allow this to be a science because evolution hurts my feelings.
I would highly recommend you watch the following video. It's nearly 2 hours long, but it covers the Dover trial in great detail. It is by Nova and is called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It is an excellent documentary on the Dover v Kitzmiller trial. It gives a pretty good explanation of how science works, why evolution is good science, why intelligent design is not science and it exposes the lies and hypocrisy of ID proponents during the trial. It's a long documentary, but so informative that I have it DVRd and I watch it at least a couple times a year.
By the way, one actual fact you may find interesting, there are two websites which collect signatures (names, at least), one of people who disagree with evolution, the other of people who stand behind it.
The one, "A Dissent from Darwinism", has a lot of names, but also a lot of controversy. Most of the names on it are people who aren't qualified to speak on evolution. Computer scientists, for instance, who don't know anything beyond basic biology and nothing of genetics. Of those who are qualified, a great many of them are on record saying that they have no idea how their name got on that list and they certainly don't agree with it. There are just under 1,000 names. A handful of them, including Michael Behe, are qualified to give an opinion.
The other, Project Steve, is a list of scientists whose name must be Steve or some variant of Steve and who must be qualified to give an opinion on evolution. There are 1,403 names on that very restrictive list.
So there are far more scientists qualified to give an opinion on evolution AND who are named Steve or some variant of the name Steve who stand behind evolution than there are just general people with some degree which technically qualifies them to call themselves a "scientist" who disagree with it. Think about that. Say you just bought a car and you had 2 friends telling you conflicting things about that car. The first friend told you it was a terrible car and he brought you 1,000 people who agreed with him, but of those only a dozen or so actually worked with, or even owned cars. The other friend brought you 1,400 people who said it was a good car, ALL of them actually designed cars for a living and from all the people he could have brought you he brought you ONLY people named Steve. Who would you believe? The guy who brought you 12 experts and a thousand morons or the guy who could bring you SO MANY experts that even though he only picked people named Steve he STILL brought you 400 more people than the other guy?
The teach the controversy movement has nothing to do with science. There is no scientific controversy. The science is settled. The controversy is in public opinion, which means exactly squat to science. And, in fact, one of the hallmarks of a pseudoscience is that its proponents take it directly to the public, bypassing scientific standards. If intelligent design were a science it would be debated among scientists, not forced into high school classes. High school students are not qualified to judge the merit of a scientific theory. Scientists are. The "controversy" is entirely manufactured by the teach the controversy movement. The reason for the controversy is to get religion into schools because it's easier to tell an adult that magic is real if you taught that adult that magic was real from childhood. Children who grow into adults without religious upbringings are less likely to be religious, and that is what this is really all about. Their numbers are falling rapidly and it scares the hell out of them. So they want to plant religion into the minds of our kids so that future numbers aren't so bad. That is what this is really all about. It's not a scientific argument at all. You debate science in scientific circles, not in high schools. Scientists debate science and decide what to believe, not high school students with no scientific training or understanding. So there is no controversy to teach because you don't get to manufacture a controversy and then pretend that you're being treated unfairly if schools don't teach the garbage which can't pass scientific muster along side the real science which did.
I don't deny that the signifigant majority of scientist say that they believe in evolution. And normally in this case, it is not explicit by what they mean by evolution. And I think that there are a number of reasons, for why they might say this. Some have studied the topic, and truly believe they are correct. I think that some are just repeating what they have been taught, and there are some that may fear backlash, from opposing the common dogma of the day.
If you would have just said, that it makes accurate predictions, then I probably could of guessed, that you would have mentioned Tiktaalik (either that or it would be talking about evolution that no one questions and is demonstrable). And unfortunately from more recent findings, he is a few million years late, and an ocean or so away from the first tetrapods. I do find that most of the evidence however does boil down to, this kinda looks like this, and therefore common descent. Unless of course, it doesn't fit the model, and walla they look a like because of convergent evolution.
As to the lists, I think that there only use is to show what people do say they believe X. After that, I am going to look at their reasons, and not argumentum ad populum. As to controversy in the descent from darwin list, I know there are some which are argued have deceased since signing the list, and there are some who have asked to be removed from the list and have. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/ans...94331.html If there remains a significant number who do not wish to be on the list, who are they? You also bring up the topic of qualification of those who signed. I would be careful here, as a computer scientist, may have more to say than you think concerning evolution, and may have expertise which is valid concerning the changes required in the neo-darwinian model and also in detecting design from random noise. You may also be making an assumption, that because their degree is in computer science, that they have not studied the relevant material or are making an informed decision. Similarly Faz Rana is listed under his major of chemistry. Now the case could be made that chemistry has quite a bit to do with evolution (specifically darwinian evolution), but this also ignores that fact, that his focus has been in bio-chemistry, and it was this study, that lead him away from evolutionary theory. For more on chemistry concerns in evolution see here ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...e-details/ )
This brings up a last point concerning the list, their is a difference in the description on the list. The Descent from Darwin list, focuses more narrowly on the darwinian (or neo-darwinian) model. One can believe in common descent, and still reject the neo-darwinian explanation. I was reading the other day, where Larry Moran say's, that he would sign the list, but believes that it would be misconstrued as supporting creationism. The list of Steve's (I believe) only mentions evolution, in which depending on the meaning, I may agree, I may be skeptical, or I may disagree. I think that is an issue, in that evolution can have different meanings, and often a bait and switch is used, to take one meaning, which has very little controversy, and then transfer that to other meanings, where there is more controversy.
Do you think that if there is scientific information, which weakens the case for evolution, that it should not be taught along with the evidence for it?
