who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[antagon]

I'm guessing she won't watch a single one. And then in a month or two claim no one has shown her anything.

obstinacy: the talent that's needed to remain uninformed, even in the information age.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm guessing she won't watch a single one. And then in a month or two claim no one has shown her anything.

That's exactly what she'll do. Or maybe she'll bitch that no one can argue "Darwinism as defined by" her (because none of us believe that anyways, obviously).

I have long ceased to try and convince these people of anything. They are like the third group of people Exodus talks about in the first minutes of his video.

I only put that up there to shut up the "you guys can't explain to me what you believe"..

Of course, she'll probably still say it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh, some simple stats from the intro video that are often paraded around:

70% of Scientists believe in God.
99.98% of biologists accept evolution.

Sources in the video.

 

[USViking]

Yes, I do believe evolution is true.

 

[Big Fitz]

Even if it came down to simply, "Who is more believable?" Those that push the supernatural or those that offer scientific evidence. I would still believe scientists, simply because they present so much evidence. Way beyond, "Gawd did it".

What is the evidence for evolution?

This is why Republicans don't get scientists:

BARACK! Six Percent! Six Percent! BARACK OBAMA! Tweetweet!

It's not a lib science thread till Rdolt posts useless charts!



Now to the OP.


I do believe in micro-evolution. It's been proven quite conclusively it happens. Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment. Minor non structural mutations that don't kill occur. Things like that. This has been proven through direct observation and time.

I don't believe in macro-evolution. The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur. Sorry, I have seen no evidence of 'bootstrapping' in biology from one species to the next.

If you want to get really convoluted, consider maybe that the world WAS created by God, and then sin is the source of all mutation and "evolution". The monsters (yes that was an official scientific term once) we find in the fossil record had lived at one time, but were perversions created by a sin damaged world. Most of which, if you believe in the Bible, were destroyed during the Flood.

I don't know for sure. I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either. I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true. For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species. No proof, just belief based on what you trust.

 

[antagon]

fitz, what is the difference between your ideas of micro and macro evolution? what prevents the changes you accept from diverging to the extent that scientists might call the original specimen a different creature than the evolved?

the challenge for folks like yourself who believe that there are two types of evolution is to show the natural barrier that differentiates them. if i contend that there are two sexes, i could point to their respective genes to substantiate it. what substantiates your idea about micro and macro evolution? where is the evidence for your claimed ceiling on the extent of evolutionary change?

 

[Big Fitz]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

 

[geauxtohell]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

 

[geauxtohell]

[
I do believe in micro-evolution. It's been proven quite conclusively it happens. Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment. Minor non structural mutations that don't kill occur. Things like that. This has been proven through direct observation and time.

I don't believe in macro-evolution. The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur. Sorry, I have seen no evidence of 'bootstrapping' in biology from one species to the next.

As I said before, this statement is akin to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter. It further becomes silly when you consider that the concept of species is a man-made venture. We define where to draw the line for what is and isn't a species based on our own rules. You accept that MSSA became MRSA and you are fine with that, because it's still Staph aureus. However, if tomorrow the microbiologists decided that MRSA was a novel species that deserved it's own name (like what happened when member of the Strept family became enterococcus), would you cease to believe that MRSA exists since it is now a new species?

This is why this is simply a silly rhetorical argument that only the anti-evolution people toss around. No one else pays attention to it.

I don't know for sure. I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either. I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true. For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species. No proof, just belief based on what you trust.

And again, you may choose to reject the evidence for evolution. That doesn't mean it is non-existent.

 

[Big Fitz]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

no shit?

I never would have known. But soft tissue a structural change does not make.

 

[geauxtohell]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

no shit?

I never would have known. But soft tissue a structural change does not make.

But it does bear out your complaint about "no evidence of organs evolving" to be absurd nonsense.

As for the fossil record, it absolutely shows gradual change.

 

[Big Fitz]

[
I do believe in micro-evolution. It's been proven quite conclusively it happens. Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment. Minor non structural mutations that don't kill occur. Things like that. This has been proven through direct observation and time.

I don't believe in macro-evolution. The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur. Sorry, I have seen no evidence of 'bootstrapping' in biology from one species to the next.

As I said before, this statement is akin to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter. It further becomes silly when you consider that the concept of species is a man-made venture. We define where to draw the line for what is and isn't a species based on our own rules. You accept that MSSA became MRSA and you are fine with that, because it's still Staph aureus. However, if tomorrow the microbiologists decided that MRSA was a novel species that deserved it's own name (like what happened when member of the Strept family became enterococcus), would you cease to believe that MRSA exists since it is now a new species?

This is why this is simply a silly rhetorical argument that only the anti-evolution people toss around. No one else pays attention to it.

I don't know for sure. I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either. I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true. For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species. No proof, just belief based on what you trust.

And again, you may choose to reject the evidence for evolution. That doesn't mean it is non-existent.

So now you're saying all evolutionary change is a straight line progression?

A rat is a cat is a dog is a boy?

You're talking micro-evolution. But let me ask this then. If micro and macro evolution are the same, where are the wooly mammoths? Where are the neanderthals? Why are there still apes? Why don't Dinosaurs exist?

I'm not saying science is infallible. In fact I'm insisting Science is VERY fallible, and is nothing more than mankind's best guess on how the universe works. It is not the definer of reality.

 

[Big Fitz]

It might surprise you to learn that soft tissue is not well represented in the fossil record.

Shocking, I know.

no shit?

I never would have known. But soft tissue a structural change does not make.

But it does bear out your complaint about "no evidence of organs evolving" to be absurd nonsense.

As for the fossil record, it absolutely shows gradual change.

No shit?

You mean you have incontrovertible proof, and not just guesses, conjecture and theory? I'd love to see that.

Can shove that "fact" right back up where you pulled it out.

 

[geauxtohell]

So now you're saying all evolutionary change is a straight line progression?

No. I never said that. In light of that, the rest of your post makes little sense. Furthermore, the existence of macroevolution doesn't extinguish the concept of extinction.

I'm not saying science is infallible. In fact I'm insisting Science is VERY fallible, and is nothing more than mankind's best guess on how the universe works. It is not the definer of reality.

I agree except for the "best guess" statement. Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand.

 

[geauxtohell]

No shit?

You mean you have incontrovertible proof, and not just guesses, conjecture and theory? I'd love to see that.

Can shove that "fact" right back up where you pulled it out.

No one claimed "incontrovertible proof". We have claimed that it is far more than whimsical guesses made in the back rooms of academia.

You can see the proof if you care to watch any of the videos I linked or crack a biology book.

 

[konradv]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

No skeletal record?!?! What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Big Fitz]

Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Nice try to misconstrue. I said, microevolution happens. Still seen no proof of macro.

 

[Big Fitz]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

No skeletal record?!?! What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting. A solid record of mutation to be sure.

Whether or not it's macroevolution, I'm still unconvinced. After all, you have zebras, impalas, and all sorts of other dromidaries out there that could be mistaken potentially for ancestors. That's what I'm talking about best guess. We've made lots like this before in science.

Also,

 

[konradv]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

No skeletal record?!?! What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting. A solid record of mutation to be sure.

Whether or not it's macroevolution, I'm still unconvinced. After all, you have zebras, impalas, and all sorts of other dromidaries out there that could be mistaken potentially for ancestors. That's what I'm talking about best guess. We've made lots like this before in science.

Also,

No they wouldn't be mistaken for possible anscestors, because they're modern species, i.e. descendents. I think you're getting confused in your defintions. Is horse evolution as presented evidence of macroevolution or isn't it? Just because it's our "best guess" doesn't make it wrong. it's up to the doubters to prove that. We'll just be pulling in more fossil data. Hope you can keep up.

 

[geauxtohell]

Again, evolution is well supported if you are willing to not simply dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Nice try to misconstrue. I said, microevolution happens. Still seen no proof of macro.

That's because you don't understand that there is no real difference between the two.