Evidence of Evolution

There is one thing worth note regarding Expelled, and its use here as a source without citing specific claims. You're creating a debate where, for the purpose of being able to debate it, one has to have shelled out money. Were there opportunities to see it without requiring money, it would be much fairer than to say "you have to directly financially support this argument made by the side you might disagree with". With, websites, or even movies that have been out for some time, there are ways to see it that aren't hinging on direct financial support.

 

I can agree with that, however, I will also addend as an aside point that I've likewise shelled out money for my education, books on this issue by all sides, and even just the amount for the liquid gold we call fuel to travel to the local library. Everything has a cost, including, ISP service, or just being uninformed. I don't regard purchasing a book by Richard Dawkins as funding him as much as actually reading his views. Then again, my tax dollars go to funding subjects in the local school system to which I am philosophically opposed...yada, yada, yada...

 

DorkmanScott,

Okay, links working.

Just For Fun;

Hm, snakes with legs? How...Biblical...would that suggest that the Holy Bible is the oldest source known with a literary depiction of snakes with legs?

But, then, the concept of the universe beginning, expanding out, then the formation of the earth, life arising first in the water and subsequently moving to land....is also straight out of Genesis.

Those wacky ancients and their scientific stone-age intellectual prowess...

 

There's a very specific reason why I said directly Darth_Brooks. If it was out so that he could get it from a library, or, as he mentioned, Netflix, then that would be different.

 

And I agreed.

For the record, I made a passing reference to Expelled, followed by the Galileo mention,...I'm not out to defend Expelled or anything...mountains out of mole hills and all that.

 

Vaders La ment
1) Even if I were rude about everything it does not make me wrong. 2 + 2 still = 4 even if I say it like a big jerk.

Which is why you should never be a spokesman for your beliefs. "Big jerks" are never good salesman.

The world revolves around selling others on your ideas, not on "I'm right dammit".

Be a better salesman or don't waste your time.

 

It is not my belief that 2 + 2 = 4, it simply is regardless of your opinion of me. There is the problem with what you think of how I say anything. I could say it nice, I could say it mean, how I say it is irrelevent. Are you actually going to tell me that you ignore facts because you don't like the manner it was explained?

And as I said, my question is legit.

 

Strictly speaking, the Bible says "serpent", not specifically "snake". The Sumerian serpent god Ningishzida was a serpent with legs and wings -- in fact, I remember reading something that speculated that the Biblical serpent might have been derived from him. I'll see if I can find that, although that's more appropriate in the discussion in the Atheism thread.

The Sumerians, incidentally, founded their civilization around 6000BC -- two thousand years before strict Creationism says the Earth was supposedly created.

 

Vaders La Ment

Are you actually going to tell me that you ignore facts because you don't like the manner it was explained?

People don't make a buying decision, just like they don't choose what to believe, based on "what is" objectively.

They make their decision based on how they feel about something.

Make them feel better about your beliefs and your argument, instead of chiding them, and you've won half the argument.

Otherwise you're spitting in the wind.



edit

Vaders la Ment
It is not my belief that 2 + 2 = 4, it simply is regardless of your opinion of me.

But notice you used the purest science, mathematics, and not biology to make your point. Why?

 

DorkmanScott,

I appreciate the thought, but I was just kidding around. I would be very surprised if there weren't prior mentions in earlier cultures.

Edit: However, I am unaware of any other story related to a serpent loosing it's legs.

 

VadersLament,

"It is not my belief that 2 + 2 = 4, it simply is regardless of your opinion of me. There is the problem with what you think of how I say anything. I could say it nice, I could say it mean, how I say it is irrelevent."

You're bordering on "absolutism"?!?

Tread carefully...



But, you are correct that it is to the issue...and let it not be to the man.

 

Also worth pointing out that the Bible doesn't specify that the serpent had legs, only that it was cursed by God to crawl on its belly and eat dust after the fall. Maybe it had wings before.

 

DorkmanScott,

I do believe you are correct.
Hm, never noticed that before. Traditionally it's always been accepted that the serpent lost it's legs...I'll have to look further into this, the beginning of the tradition or perhaps some translative difference.

Good showing.

 

Or perhaps it was arboreal?

Also, do snakes eat dust?

 

I do appreciate it. I don't actually have it in auto-text, and I spent several minutes finding the right mark-up to use.

Kinda - the claim made in the earlier thread was that the information for all possible dog breeds was contained in wild dogs, and that "information loss" (more about this later) was responsible for speciation (so wolves possessed greater genetic diversity than chihuahuas). This claim ends up resting upon a few false claims. First, there are basic genes that are found in all animals (from flies to humans), which end up producing features like axial orientation and cephalocaudal/proximodistal development (i.e., all animals possessing these genes display bilateral symmetry for limbs and develop from the head down and middle outwards). This accounts for similarlities in basic morphology between wild dogs and chihuahuas. If the canine genome actually contained all of the information for all possible breeds, it would be *significantly* larger than it actually is. Second, speciation as currently defined in biology is reproductive isolation, whether through chromosomal mismatch (e.g., humans and chimps can't breed because we have 46 chromosomes and they have 48), structural mismatch (the parts don't fit together), etc. There are additional forces at work, too, such as groups who become isolated from larger populations (e.g., the finches studied on Darwin's voyage on the Beagle) - these subset organisms have limited diversity in their genome (in the sense that the available genotypes in the parent generation is less than the available genotypes in the larger population), which produce genetic bottlenecks and founder effects (both of which end up causing subsequent generations to have greater phenotypic resemblance to the parent organisms than the larger population of which they are a subset). The F1 through F1000... generations, therefore, will be more like each other than the larger population, but this does not translate into a lack of genetic diversity (for the reasons I put forth in my earlier post about mutations like SNPs, VNTRs, and microsatellites producing variation). This isolation does, however, lead to speciation as the population remains isolated - phenotypic divergence becomes more pronounced as the population breeds within itself, rather than spreading the genes around. This is how we get St. Bernards and Chihuahuas.

 

I totally missed this while getting caught up on the thread. This isn't conjecture - this is the actual mechanism, as observed in the lab and in studies in population genetics and molecular phylogenetics. You are confusing your ideological "conjecture" (masked as an attempt at DVD-esque track commentary) with my "empirical data". These aren't the same thing, and you know that, as in thread after thread it's been exposed that your rejection of evolution is based on ideological assumptions, rather than knowledge of the actual science involved.

You insinuate that your position is "more elegant and simple", but have nothing to back this up, as what little evidence you've proposed have amounted to "well, Darwin was referenced by Marx" and unscientific piffle from white supremecist websites (the crap you posted from National Vanguard - a record of which exists in the last evolution thread). You reject evolution based on philosophical and historical criticisms, not because you have anything to base your opinions on, which is shallow and pedantic. Study the actual mechanisms of genetics if you want to dismiss what I post as conjecture and equatable to your "elegantly simple and observable" tripe.

 

Quix,

"All sound and fury and signifying nothing."

You waste more time on posts that address straw men, in order to attempt to insult others who disagree with you.


How is it "crap"?

THEY HAVE NOT COMPLETED THE RESEARCH....

Once again, as sooo often in the past, you don't actually quote the relevant COMMENT...WHILE GOING ON LIKE THE MATTER IS SETTLED...LOLOLOLOL...

 

This would have been the relevant quote to address, Professor...

And, no, you didn't provide any "empirical data" relevant to the lizards, as you haven't studied the lizards...you do realize that don't you?

And, if you're arguing with my thoughts on the matter...guess what boyo, one of the individuals associated with the study basically stated the samething I put forth...gee, how smart do you feel now, Mr. "bullcrap" ( quoted from Quix use of the word )...


Now you'll go on for pages attempting to obfuscate the matter to save face...

 

Q_S,


Your post was obviously intended to bait and flame...where is moderation?


"You insinuate that your position is "more elegant and simple", but have nothing to back this up, as what little evidence you've proposed have amounted to "well, Darwin was referenced by Marx" and unscientific piffle from white supremecist websites (the crap you posted from National Vanguard - a record of which exists in the last evolution thread)."

Ad Hominem, much? I don't think you can quote where I referenced "Marx" or "White Supremecists" in this thread? It's only four pages,...I'm unable to find it,...so, I don't think my observations of the lizards info had any connection to "Marx" or "White Supremecists"...ergo, your post comes off as soooo much raving nonsense.


"You reject evolution based on philosophical and historical criticisms, not because you have anything to base your opinions on, which is shallow and pedantic. Study the actual mechanisms of genetics if you want to dismiss what I post as conjecture and equatable to your "elegantly simple and observable" tripe."


More unrelated nonsense.

 

Everyone remember-just like any "hot button" topic that is debated in the forum- to keep the focus of the discussion on the topic and not on any single person.

 

I can see where you are coming from, 44, but I think the following bears posting, as it has been the cause of a lot of previous conflict, so if it can be avoided in the future, debate can be more civil.

You have taken a contrarian stance in this thread, whether you are choosing to call it argument or commentary, and have continued to insinuate that the science supporting evolutionary adaptation is not present, as you have done in the previous iterations of the evolution debate threads. My response to your post explicitly was to address the statement that the mechanisms of mutation I proposed were simply "conjecture". Where is the conjecture in suggesting that the same processes that have been observed time and time again in both laboratory and ecological settings is not occurring in the population in question? This is certainly much more reasonable than what you've proposed (inherent characteristics). They are only both "conjecture" in the sense that 1% and 99% are both "percentages".

To the extent that you were referring specifically to the population in question, it is true that the research is not complete, but it is crap to suggest a mechanism entirely different from the mechanisms observed in every other species on Earth.

No, I freely admit that I did not *quote* the post in question; I'm simply not putting up with your "same nonsense, different thread" approach. You have repeatedly posted diatribes against Darwin and evolution, cited a personal religious experience, and made arguments against the actual science involved without actually demonstrating any scientific insight, experience, or understanding or making anything more than an oblique reference to evolutionary biology as it is presented defined and studied. You have also suggested that those who have the relevant experience and background have been "educated into imbecility", suggesting that someone who knows *less* about the field somehow knows *more*, which is paradoxical at best. Now, I will admit that these concerns stem from past evolution threads, so, strictly speaking, my concerns do not address specific comments made in this thread. But if your posting history and character are the same as the person who posted in previous debates, I suspect they will be coming eventually.

No, I haven't studied the lizards in question, but I have set foot in Biology labs, I have run the experiments detailing mutational mechanisms, and understand the science. The leap in my logic is the assumption that these lizards evolve in the same manner as every other lizard on Earth. Mea culpa.

Then the burden of proof is still upon those who propose a different form of adaptation from every other organism on Earth.

Nah, I'll address your post pretty much line by line, like I usually do.

 

I can see where you are coming from, 44, but I think the following bears posting, as it has been the cause of a lot of previous conflict, so if it can be avoided in the future, debate can be more civil.

Absolutely. It just comes back to the difference of calling a website "crap," and calling someone's views "crap." Anyone should be able to point out the fallacies they see with a source around here,(and feel free to do so) but not make the debate personal. That's all.

 

Quix,


That is still nothing but more ad hominem.

 

Maybe everyone should just take a couple of minutes to step away, and come back with a different perspective? Don't get caught in a back and forth brewing flame war.

 

Actually, it's a bit more ad argumentum, considering I'm objecting to the methodology you've employed in the previous iterations of this debate, and my suspicions that you'll do the same thing here, in light of the oblique posts you've made already (and questioned by alvarez and Scott). The specific philosophical and pseudo-scientific claims you've made have already been addressed (both those in this thread and the previous threads), as well as the "conjectural" basis of the actual evolutionary mechanisms.

Regardless, I'm off for the night.