In the Comments section of one of the articles on this website, is a conversation about evolution versus creationism. You can see the conversation here:

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/pmm_feature_full_text/native_american_dna/#1365

I recommended to "Maclouie" that the conversation continue in a discussion thread. He agreed. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time this weekend to participate in the discussion but I know there are plenty of others who can respond to the issue. I'll post what I can.

I claim that evolution is rightly called a fact, because there is so much evidence that supports it as such. How it works is the subject of various theories. I compared the issue to a crime scene where the evidence might make it beyond question that a murder was committed, while how it was committed is yet to be determined.

You can read Maclouies views in the comments at the link above. If anyone wants to offer their views please fee free.

 Signature 

Evolution is a fact.  My wife, a geneticist, deals with it and sees it every day, basing hundreds of premises and hypotheses off of it.  As far as I know, she has not based any of her hypotheses off of a large white man in the sky controlling everything by his arbitrary whims.  

If anyone does not think that evolution occures, then they should probably not put their trust in things based upon evolutionary science, such as many vaccines. 

I think one of the most difficult lines of evidence for creationists to refute is vestigial organs -- organs that have no apparent purpose in one species but do have a purpose in another. The similarities are evidence that the two species share a common ancestor.

The human tailbone is one example. From the creationist point of  view I'd like to know why we have a tailbone, or why men have nipples? Either God is too lazy to come up with better designs instead of copying and pasting from previous designs, or he likes to play jokes on people and make it only appear that evolution is a fact. I can imagine God looking down at this conversation and snickering. "Boy I sure have that Jeff Ricks fooled. This is fun. What other tricks can I play on him?"

Here's some more:

• Why do some birds have wings but can't fly? The ostrich for one example.
• Why do whales have hind leg bones?
• Why does our hair stand on end when we're frightened? In other species its because it fluffs up their hair or feathers and makes them look larger and more able to defend itself. Doesn't do much for we humans, does it.
• Why do some species, that live in the dark, have eyes but can't see?
• Why do dandelions have sexual organs (of the plant variety) but don't use them? Instead they clone themselves asexually.
• Why do we have an appendix that serves no purpose other than help doctors make their house payments?

Maclouie, how do creationists explain away the above evidence that supports evolution?

 Signature 

And it is so much more that vestigial organs... the amount of evidence is staggering.  The fossil records, when they can be found, are consistent throughout the entire world.  These same fossils can be found with consistency and placed together with continental drift.

Our genetic code is easily traced and can be seen to slowly diverge over time.  Of course we can get such different species when all it takes is a simple mutation to have somebody born with major differences - maybe not so much that they cannot reproduce or are a different species, but enough for us to see how simple gene mutations can affect things.

When entire paragraphs of our genetic code can be found in bacteria it makes you wonder where we came from, and if we just didn't evolve to make larger bacteria communities.

Jeff Ricks:

I think one of the most difficult lines of evidence for creationists to refute is vestigial organs -- organs which have no apparent purpose in one species but do have a purpose in another. The similarities are evidence that the two species share a common ancestor.

 

Maclouie, how do creationists explain away the above evidence that supports evolution?

 

 

Let me play in this game of Maclouie's:

Oh, please, Professor Ricks. You think you have won the game.

I want to know why only mammals have belly-buttons!!!

 There. That should debunk evolution.

  Wait...wait! Even reptiles have belly buttons??????

Looks like Maclouie and I need to go back to the drawing board...

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

hypatia:

Jeff Ricks:

I think one of the most difficult lines of evidence for creationists to refute is vestigial organs -- organs which have no apparent purpose in one species but do have a purpose in another. The similarities are evidence that the two species share a common ancestor.

 

Maclouie, how do creationists explain away the above evidence that supports evolution?

 

 

 

Let me play in this game of Maclouie's:

 

 

Oh, please, Professor Ricks. You think you have won the game.

 

I want to know why only mammals have belly-buttons!!!

 

 There. That should debunk evolution.

 

Hmmmm....let's go back one step more. Why do mammals and birds and insects and reptiles use "eggs" for reproductive purposes but plants don't? Answer. They all share a common egg producing ancestral species that plants don't "stem" from (pun intended).

Why do only mammals have belly buttons?  Because they all share a common belly button'ed ancestral species that other non-belly buttoned species don't share.

So......... neener neener neener. 

 Signature 

Jeff Ricks:

hypatia:

Jeff Ricks:

I think one of the most difficult lines of evidence for creationists to refute is vestigial organs -- organs which have no apparent purpose in one species but do have a purpose in another. The similarities are evidence that the two species share a common ancestor.

 

Maclouie, how do creationists explain away the above evidence that supports evolution? 

 Let me play in this game of Maclouie's: 

 

Oh, please, Professor Ricks. You think you have won the game.

 

I want to know why only mammals have belly-buttons!!!

 

There. That should debunk evolution. 

Hmmmm....let's go back one step more. Why do mammals and birds and insects and reptiles use "eggs" for reproductive purposes but plants don't? Answer. They all share a common egg producing ancestral species that plants don't "stem" from (pun intended).

 

Why do only mammals have belly buttons?  Because they all share a common belly button'ed ancestral species that other non-belly buttoned species don't share.

 

 

So......... neener neener neener. 

 

That statement says so much, doesn't it?  It sort of suggests that one side of believers (whatever they might believe) can somehow believe that they might be the more secure ones.  The one's with much more truth and information, and therefore maybe somehow more comfortable inside of their own (mind) skin.   When perhaps there is actually so much that we really can never know about the universe.  I guess that does make it fertile ground for all of the lies, like the many untruths in The Church Of Jesus Christ OLDS, to be spread like manure in any garden.

A creator of the universe could have never conceived of the notion to build adaptability into every species, called evolution, but we might only choose it as a reckless point for only argument.

Evolution vs. Creationism. It is so over.

Evolution = "changes over time." We know the earth has changed over time.  What's to argue? Unfortunately, we are in a period when the earth is changing observably during the life span of an individual. This is not only unprecedented, it means you get to watch evolution in action. I grew up in farmland. Due to "changes over my lifetime" no one could farm this stretch to save his immortal soul. That means habitat is being lost, species are moving in and other moving out. Plagues and people are booming but the flora and fauna native to the area, not so much.

Knowing the history of the debate might help. I don't claim to be an expert, by my general ed left me with a sketch I'm willing to share. If anyone wants to challenge it, she is welcome. I'm not going to research it, but lay out what I remember.

The Victorian England of Darwin's time believed the earth had been created in 7 days roughly 4000 years (?) before and the earth had stayed that way ever since. In short, people were not only ignorant of the relationship between the species, but ignorant of the most basic knowledge of geology and earth science. That the earth was ancient, had gone through many different periods, had not always had life, that the life on earth had changed, that species had walked or swam the earth and then disappeared, that there had ever been dinosaurs -- none of this was the common knowledge it is today. God had craved the Grand Canyon, and there it had stood in all its magnificence, and there it would always stand. There were the creationist on the side of the old Biblical conventions and the young, new scientists on the side of observable phenomena. 

This was the original debate -- one creationists lost so badly it still stings. All the creationists were complacent, self-satisfied and laughed at these radical new thinkers -- who turned out to be embarrassingly, humiliatingly, provably right. All those damned dinosaur bones. Nothing worse than that, is there? Well, yes. That is when your dearest, most cherished beliefs (such as God) are tied up with other beliefs (like the earth is 4000 years old) which turn out to be easily proved as false. Yikes! Does that mean there is no god?

Some people just gave up the old beliefs with a simple, "Oh. I get it. I see." And not everyone who did so assumed that should influence whether or not they still believed in god. Other times beliefs evolved from one generation to the next as the family got more education. Others were bad losers. They kept changing the debate. Without gracefully saying, "You are right," they abandoned certain beliefs -- say in a 4000 year old earth -- while clinging to other beliefs -- god created the species separately.

One of the most fascinating ironies is that creationism has visibly evolved! And it has evolved in the classic statement -- has randomly changed with some changes being better adapted to the current climate of scientific inquiry so those those variations surviving! 

Creationists have also tried to turn the tables on scientists -- and claim they are more scientific! I think they yearn to make others feel the humiliation they have experienced. They seem not to get science, which is not about disproving god exists, but about examining measurable evidence. (And the measurable evidence does nothing to suggest god exists, alas.) They had have to change all their espoused beliefs -- without acknowledging being wrong. Now they land on minutiae of evolution they don't seem to really understand and claim it means there is a god! See -- they just got it wrong in Victorian times. God created every species separately; He just created some weird ones that died out, created others that lived on longer, creates new bugs every day, kills off a few varieties of toads -- whatever. Hey -- it's all just like Genesis! Right? For me, it doesn't make sense unless you know the history of the debate -- but that is just me. I like history.

One of the problems creationists have blown out of proportion is refusing the get that "theory" means something different in science than in common usage. What we call fact, scientists will cautiously call theory. That doesn't mean there isn't consensus in the scientific community or the "theory" isn't backed up with measurable evidence. It is just that science, unlike the creationists, are open to the possibilities of further discoveries and future needs to change belief structures to accommodate facts.  

I like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy

I can't seem to get the 2nd cartoon to upload...sorry....it's a good one...try this link:

http://primatediaries.blogspot.com/2007/09/science-vs-norse-mythology.html

One of the great burdens in this debate is terminology. Once there is agreement on what words mean then the discussion can have relevance. This is not easy to do because in science there are different opinions on what words like "theory" and "hypothesis" mean. But for the sake of this thread we can nail down definitions and from that point on we can all understand each other a little better.

Before I offer my preferred terms let me give you all a little history lesson from the Greeks. The Greeks invented "history" and the "scientific method". Now by "invent" I mean they created the format that we use today. History and science to the Greeks are really the same thing and the very word "History" in Greek means to inquire.

Greek historians discovered that after interviewing people who participated in famous historic events that these people had differing accounts of what actually happened. 

Historians were surprised to find that the official stories were often dissimilar to what witnesses reported. So a process of cataloguing stories, finding commonalities and testing for the truth emerged. There was a realization that once could never really know everything about an event but an overall plot could be revealed. The major details could be confirmed but smaller details which might be significant, might never be understood.

So the process of critically examining information emerged and this process is the foundation of all science the legal system and of course, history. Staying true to this tradition we should realize that science (when done correctly) does not claim to "know" anything. Science claims to recognize what is most likely. Absolute knowledge or truth does not exist for science, but for ease of language terms like "know" or "fact" are used in science but it is assumed that this really means "it is almost certainly so." Another way to put this is the term used in the legal profession and that is "beyond reasonable doubt."

Now on to the evolution debate proper:

There are usually three separate debates on evolution. Debate 1. Whether there is change of species and if it is ongoing. 2. Whether the mechanism of change is evolution. 3. Whether evolution is answering how life began on Earth.

Debate 1 is not what is going on between intelligent design advocates and evolutionists. Both parties agree that speciation occurred; one is arguing god organized the change and the other that random chance and natural selection organized the change. Only old-school creationists contend that speciation did not occur and will not believe their lying eyes when they gaze upon the evidence. 

Debate 2. Here is the real battleground of the debate. What is the cause of the observed changes? Evolution has on its side fossil records, laboratory tests and falsifiable evidence. Creationists have faith, and ID'ers have as of yet not much more than creationists. If ID'ers or for that matter creationists come up with falsifiable evidence that can show how their ideas (hypothesis) have merit and how the evolutionists' evidence can be accounted for in their model then science could take their ideas seriously. At this point they have not yet met the standard that would make the theory of evolution questionable.

Debate 3. This is a common error in the debate over evolution. Evolution does not account for how life began, it only accounts for how life evolved once it arrived. Creationists often find that since the account in the bible ( or Koran, Torah or any other god-based creation story) disagrees with evolution on how species emerge, then evolution must disagree with it on how life began. This is a false conclusion. Evolution does not address this question.  

Briefly I want to address a common comment or question about evolution and that is that humans have never observed speciation occurring. 

This statement belies a staggering lack of understanding of the time scale required of evolution. Scientists think the Earth has been around for billions of years, and humans for a million years with modern man emerging in the last 100,000 years; compared to creationists who think the Earth has only been around for 6000 years.

So to an evolutionist of course humans have never recorded such an event happening in their lifetime, because humans have been around for such a small part of the Earth's history.

Where I am sitting at my desk right now, I am within two miles of one of the greatest archaeological finds in North America. (Wally Beach at St. Mary's Reservoir) Two days ago, I held in my hands one of the oldest human artefacts ever found in North America. It is estimated it is 10-12,000 years old.  When the person that last used the artefact looked upon the landscape around me he saw pretty much the same view as I have today. There may have been a few more or less trees, rivers might have been deeper and the grass greener, (in summer of course) but overall the mountains were the same, the hills were the same, it was still a prairie landscape. He and I could still find out way around each others neighbourhood.

Yet to human history (vs. Geological history) the spread of time from me to him is about as far as you can go in North America. The fauna in our neighbourhood would also have been radically different. He and I would know each other as humans, I would be taller and ahem...much better looking, but in most every other way we were the same. But the animals around us, although familiar, were often different. There were camels, super bison, scimitar cats (a member of the sabre tooth family of cats) and woolly mammoths.

A woolly mammoth is an ancestor of the modern elephant, the scimitar cat is a an ancestor of the mountain lion, the super bison is the ancestor of the modern bison. If this change could happen in a measly 10,000 years, what kind of changes could occur in millions of years?

Now some will say "why did humans not change so much in that time frame if other animals did?" This is a good question and the answer helps us understand how evolution works. If a particular design works well it tends to survive, if conditions change the design may need to change with it, if the original design is not resilient enough. Humans, crows, coyotes, wolves, and a whole host of other critters have changed little over the last 10,000 years and that is because the 10,000 BCE model was amenable to today's environment, and therefore had little pressure to change.  Some critters such as the horse-shoe crab have remained the same since the days of the dinosaur and again it is because their design has been resilient in the face of massive changes to life on Earth.

Another common claim of creationists is to claim that the chances of life (meaning life as it is now not the origins of all life -presumably) occurring randomly on the earth is about the same as millions of letters in the air randomly and having them fall into patterns forming thw works of Shakespear. Or another example is a tornado hitting a junkyard and the junk forming into a 747 Jumbo Jet.

The claim here is that random chance alone is incapable of producing complex life as it exists now. The truth is that creationists are right on this point, random chance is incapable of creating life as we now know it. The problem for creationists is that evolution does not claim that random chance alone created life. The needed ingredient to the process of evolution is natural selection. Meaning only random changes that had benefit would be perpetuated.

To borrow from the famous example of natural selection provided by Richard Dawkins, imagine a safe with a rotating lock combination system like you see at bank vaults. Now the chances of guessing what the combination is in the right sequence is pretty slim to none and slim is leaving town. Now imagine that every time you spun the combination dial you were given $100.00 bills every time you got close to the right number. Imagine that the closer you got to the right number the more money you got. How much quicker would you figure out the combination and how much better are the odds that you will open the safe?

This is the principle of natural selection that the conditions of the environment of a given critter tend to favour certain attributes; so that if random chance provides something that is beneficial then it will be promoted and exploited. With enough time one critter can diversify itself to a variety of niches and eventually one branch of a critter will become so changed that it will no longer be able to breed with another of its relatives of a different branch and produce fertile offspring. With even more time the two critters may no longer appear to even be related. For example a canine and an equine are very different critter, but far enough back in their lineage we find they come from a common ancestor and when looking at the modern animals we find many structural similarities that help reveal their distant affinity.

So there is my first attempt to enlighten on this subject.  I was a creationist, but the truth is self-evident and once I understood the discussion and appreciated the evidence I could come to no other conclusion than that I was wrong.

Loved your posts, Meinmachine and TheWriterWithin.

As I write, I am watching a program on the History Channel called "Evolve."

Fascinating.

Animal/human physical "shaping"  and adaptation for survival fits in perfectly with this discussion. 

Evolution makes perfect sense to me.

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

Oops, I never really offered a list of definitions, so here is a start:

1. Fact: Evidence that is provably true to a point that it cannot reasonably questioned.

2. Hypothesis: An explanation of things.

3. Theory: An explanation of things with corroborating evidence that is falsifiable.

4. Laws: A well-substantiated theory that over time is accepted as fact. (A law is theory, but theory is not always law.)

5. Burden of proof. A claim must be substantiated by those who make it. If you claim creation is the mechanism of life on earth, then provide falsifiable evidence of the claim, you have the burden of proof.

6. Falsifiable: All evidence must be able to be tested for falsehood. In other-words since we cannot know for sure if something "is" true, we can at least know if something is "not" true. For example, you claim there is a god because you feel him in your heart. We cannot test your feelings nor can we determine if you are sincere so since we cannot test your claim it is not falsifiable. In science all evidence must be falsifiable.

Now these are my definitions, and to be fair some in science would take exception to the details of my explanations but in general these are passable definitions. So unless anyone strongly disagrees with my terms of reference this will be how I use the terms when I discuss these matters.

Jeff Ricks:

I think one of the most difficult lines of evidence for creationists to refute is vestigial organs -- organs which have no apparent purpose in one species but do have a purpose in another. The similarities are evidence that the two species share a common ancestor.

 

The human tailbone is one example. From the creationist point of  view I'd like to know why we have a tailbone, or why men have nipples? Either God is too lazy to come up with better designs instead of copying and pasting from previous designs, or he likes to play jokes on people and make it only appear that evolution is a fact. I can imagine God looking down at this conversation and snickering. "Boy I sure have that Jeff Ricks fooled. This is fun. What other tricks can I play on him?"

Here's some more:

• Why do some birds have wings but can't fly? The ostrich for one example.
• Why do whales have hind leg bones?
• Why does our hair stand on end when we're frightened? In other species its because it fluffs up their hair or feathers and makes them look larger and more able to defend itself. Doesn't do much for we humans, does it.
• Why do some species, that live in the dark, have eyes but can't see?
• Why do dandelions have sexual organs (of the plant variety) but don't use them? Instead they clone themselves asexually.
• Why do we have an appendix that serves no purpose other than help doctors make their house payments?

 

Maclouie, how do creationists explain away the above evidence that supports evolution?

 

 

God made male nipples to test your Faith, Brother Ricks.  He also dissolved all the evidence of lamanite steel, written languages, Horses, Wheat and Barley, and then spent some time changing DNA.   Ray Charles could see that!

I enjoyed the link.   That was a very good read IMO.

Mr. Zip:

 

God made male nipples to test your Faith, Brother Ricks.  He also dissolved all the evidence of lamanite steel, written languages, Horses, Wheat and Barley, and then spent some time changing DNA.   Ray Charles could see that!

 Oh that God guy, he's such a prankster. What are we going to do with him Mr. Zip?

 Signature 

nonie g:

As one who has never had a problem viewing much of evolution as part of creation (no lengthy explanations offered  -  sure others have done it better)....

perhaps the question should be - in relation to what we - the created - would like to do about the "God-guy" -  it would seem to make more sense to ask what He  has done for us /will do with us. 

That, of course, is a mute point if the God guy doesn't exist.

 My point is that either God is a prankster and likes to fool people by tampering with evidence (considered a criminal offense in most cultures), or evolution is the cause of the poor engineering and obsolete appendages that are found throughout both living species and the entire fossil record.

Nonie, which works for you? Is God a prankster, or is evolution responsible for all these things?  Do you see a third option that I don't?

 Signature 

nonie g:

And a good Sunday morning to all.  As one who has never had a problem viewing much of evolution as part of creation (no lengthy explanations offered  -  sure others have done it better)....

perhaps the question should be - in relation to what we - the created - would like to do about the "God-guy" -  it would seem to make more sense to ask what He  has done for us /will do with us.  But that's coming from a grandmother who happily celebrates Christmas.  

Won't offend the atheists in here by using the standard Christmas greeting, but I do hope you all stay well, warm and have peace and happiness.

nonie g,

In your view is it 'rational' for Pastafarian's to worship and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If not why?

And Happy Holiday's back at you.

 Signature 

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” - John 3:20, KJV

The Bright Light of Skeptical Scrutiny is the best disinfectant.

Each of us is a prisoner if we live in a world without wonder and curiosity, and we must be willing to explore the world of ideas if we want to be free. Marietta McCarty explaining the meaning of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

If there was some divine explanation for "gravity" in the book of Genesis the debate would be "Gravity vs God's Divine push" or something ridiculous like that!

I have watched many of these debates and some of these guys that support ID are actually very intelligent, but mostly they themselves do what their very scriptures do, make no sense! The fact this is even a debate says it all!

P.S. Why did god give us a jaw that's to small to house all our teeth, if it's so we would invent dentist's then God is crueler than I thought!

Thank you for chiming in for us Pastafarians. May TFSM touch you with his loving Noodly Appendage.

Stephen Jay Gould in his landmark book   FULL HOUSE  

  http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=GOULD+FULL+HOUSE&r=1   

makes clear to us that Homo Sapiens is not the pinnacle of evolution. We are simply a twig at the end of one branch of the evolutionary tree of natural selection.

And here is a line from Darwin as he concludes ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. 

"  Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a begginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Science provides, in my opinion, a far more grand and beautiful view than religion ever could.

ft

 Signature 

It is one’s willingness to become uncomfortable and face the fear that what we might uncover could rock the foundations of our world that will allow us to escape the bonds of Mormonism.

INTROSPECT

It looks like Maclouie isn't going to respond in this thread like he said he would. He said he's not posting anymore on this site. Too bad. I think it would have been an interesting discussion.

 Signature 

This is another attempt to get Maclouie to do as he agreed and continue our discussion here in this thread instead of limiting the discussion to the little yellow sticky notes on the left (see the first post in this thread to understand who Maclouie is). He claims I and no one else have responded to this statement of his:

"Remember the original point: Evolution is [one of] the firmest fact[s] to ever have been validated by science. That is what I took exception to and that is what I think you'll have a problem supporting." --Maclouie

I responded in my second post in this thread. He's yet to answer it. 

I'll also respond here with this quote from Stephen J. Gould, one of the leading thinkers about evolution and one who goes against the grain of much of the scientific community. In other words, he's not one to follow the crowd:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." --Stephen J. Gould

There you have it, Maclouie. There are various theories for how evolution works but it is one of the firmest of facts ever to have been validated by science, right up there with the fact of gravity and the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. They have all been well established as facts by the overwhelming evidence that supports them as such.

In one of your little yellow box posts, over there on the left of the page, you asked for a reference to a paper from a reputable journal that establishes evolution as fact. I'll tell you what, if you can find a paper from a reputable journal that establishes gravity as fact, or establishes as fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, then I'll meet your request. But you won't! Why? Because the evidence for both is so clear that no one would waste their time doing it, nor would any reputable journal waste their time publishing it!

 You want proof that gravity is a fact? Drop a hammer on your foot. There's your proof.

You want proof that it is a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow? Stand outside at dawn and wait, and there it will be! There's your proof.

You want proof that evolution is a fact? Reach down in your pants and feel your tailbone. Or pull up your shirt and look at your nipples or stand outside naked until you start shivering and look at your goose bumps. There's your proof that it is a fact.

Maclouie, now it's your turn to respond. You claim that evolution doesn't qualify as a fact. What do you have to support your claim (other than what you called your "power of discernment)?

[Edit:  Here's another quote from Gould I'd like to include:

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ... Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."  --Stephen J. Gould  [Note: the words "theory" and "fact" in parentheses are Gould's not mine]  

Gould implies that it would be "perverse" to withhold consent to the claim that evloution is a fact. His statement and Southerton's statement that it is "one of the firmest of facts" are comparable.]

Gould References taken from here: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 Signature 

Hey Jeff, it's not that I disagree with you (I actually do believe in evollution), but that bit about the appendix isn't quite right.  Appendixes actually do have a function in humans.  They cultivate digestive bacteria (the good kind). The modern human lives in desnse populations, so it's not as needed (you can get nicely re-infected with good bacteria from other humans). There's some speculation that having an appendix also may help with weight control as it correctly maintains balances of digestive bacterias helpful to fight obesity.  

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

"What bothers me about evolution is why has it stopped and where are all the missing links?" -maclouie

I missed the bulletin that announced the cessation of evolution.  Did anyone else see it?  I was also unaware that there were missing links.  Where are they missing from?  Other than anomalies in nature, such as Dutch, I am unaware of missing links.

Maclouie, please, I would like to know more about what you confidently report as fact.  If you are right, the rest of the world needs to catch up with you and your source(s)...

OldSoul:

Hey Jeff, it's not that I disagree with you (I actually do believe in evollution), but that bit about the appendix isn't quite right.  Appendixes actually do have a function in humans.  They cultivate digestive bacteria (the good kind). The modern human lives in desnse populations, so it's not as needed (you can get nicely re-infected with good bacteria from other humans). There's some speculation that having an appendix also may help with weight control as it correctly maintains balances of digestive bacterias helpful to fight obesity.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

 

Thanks Old Soul. Apparently I overstated my claim about the appendix. According to what I've read, it's an organ that is thought to have had more of a purpose when our ancestors were herbivores--at least more-so than we are now.

 Signature 

YesIAmAPyr:

"What bothers me about evolution is why has it stopped and where are all the missing links?" -maclouie

 

 

I missed the bulletin that announced the cessation of evolution.  Did anyone else see it?  I was also unaware that there were missing links.  Where are they missing from?  Other than anomalies in nature, such as Dutch, I am unaware of missing links.

 

Maclouie, please, I would like to know more about what you confidently report as fact.  If you are right, the rest of the world needs to catch up with you and your source(s)...

 

 

 

My TBM mom used to use the argument, "If evolution is real, why don't we see apes changing into humans nowadays?"

IMO, it was an obvious display of her ignorance about the concept of evolution and the time it takes for things to noticeably evolve.

I don't blame Maclouie for not posting on this site. He doesn't have a prayer chance.

Image Attachments

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

hypatia:

I don't blame Maclouie for not posting on this site. He doesn't have a prayer chance.

 

 

 Thanks for the chuckles Hypatia.

 Signature 

Nomo sapien:

YesIAmAPyr:

"What bothers me about evolution is why has it stopped and where are all the missing links?" -maclouie

 

 

I missed the bulletin that announced the cessation of evolution.  Did anyone else see it?  I was also unaware that there were missing links.  Where are they missing from?  Other than anomalies in nature, such as Dutch, I am unaware of missing links.

 

Maclouie, please, I would like to know more about what you confidently report as fact.  If you are right, the rest of the world needs to catch up with you and your source(s)...

 

 

 

 

My TBM mom used to use the argument, "If evolution is real, why don't we see apes changing into humans nowadays?"

 

IMO, it was an obvious display of her ignorance about the concept of evolution and the time it takes for things to noticeably evolve.

 Not even to mention there would have to be some advantage for the apes to evolve into humans (not just the time to do it -- millions of years). 

If you look at the record closely there was an evolutionary path close to ours, the Neandertals.  And that path was a dead end for them.  

I think the creationists have to turn a huge blind eye to fossil records.  If they can ignore that proof, there's no use talking to them.  

Jeff Ricks:

In the Comments section of one of the articles on this website, is a conversation about evolution versus creationism. You can see the conversation here:

 

http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/pmm_feature_full_text/native_american_dna/#1365

 

I recommended to "Maclouie" that the conversation continue in a discussion thread. He agreed. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time this weekend to participate in the discussion but I know there are plenty of others who can respond to the issue. I'll post what I can.

 

I claim that evolution is rightly called a fact, because there is so much evidence that supports it as such. How it works is the subject of various theories. I compared the issue to a crime scene where the evidence might make it beyond question that a murder was committed, while how it was committed is yet to be determined.

 

You can read Maclouies views in the comments at the link above. If anyone wants to offer their views please fee free.

 

 

I admittedly don't like the word 'fact' since I think it misrepresents the nature of science.  It is religion, not science, that wants to have ideas which are never challenged or questioned but sadly that very idea of always being open to evaluation and question has been used against science to make it seem wabbly or unreliable.  However, I think that we need to defend the idea that science isn't 100% sure of anything ever by pointing out that if someone is promising they do have 100% sure answers they are simply lying to you-as has been demonstrated repeatedly through history and that the answers offered by science-though at times revised-have represented the greatest progress man has ever experienced. 

With that aside I would say evolution is about as concrete a theory as any out there.  I think that people that call it questionable or shaky science are simply dealing with their own cognitive dissonance and either avoiding the evidence or scrutinizing it in distorted ways.  While I do think that children should understand the nature of science and that it can always be challenged or re-evaluated I definitely do not think evolution should in any way be singled out to make that point. I think evolution should be taught alongside all science and in fact I think we need to start teaching it to children as soon as they start learning science in elementary school. 

If god created mankind in his image, then why in the HELL did I go bald by age 25?  All I ever see are pictures of god and jesus all bright and shiny with nice FULL flowing hair.  What I wouldn't give to have god's or jesus' hair!

On a side note, I find it interesting that most of the TBMs I talk to actually accept evolution.  But when it comes to humans, they will never take that last step.  They always say, I believe that animals evolved (they justify this by saying that "a day" in Genesis could have been millions of years). Then they say that humans were created by god and placed in the garden of eden.  Wow, talk about mental gymnastics!

 Signature 

Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God.  I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting. - Sam Harris

fdubois:

If god created mankind in his image, then why in the HELL did I go bald by age 25?  All I ever see are pictures of god and jesus all bright and shiny with nice FULL flowing hair.  What I wouldn't give to have god's or jesus' hair!

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that most of the TBMs I talk to actually accept evolution.  But when it comes to humans, they will never take that last step.  They always say, I believe that animals evolved (they justify this by saying that "a day" in Genesis could have been millions of years). Then they say that humans were created by god and placed in the garden of eden.  Wow, talk about mental gymnastics!

 Mormons just 30 years ago were definately taught evolution was not true.  Section 70 of the Doctrine and Covenants make it VERY clear that death has only been on the Earth in the last 6,000 years.  No death = no evolution.  Acceptance of evolution is common, but it is not Mormon doctrine.  Even in 1989 at BYU there was controversy over it in our Biology class.  

Jeff Ricks:

OldSoul:

Hey Jeff, it's not that I disagree with you (I actually do believe in evollution), but that bit about the appendix isn't quite right.  Appendixes actually do have a function in humans.  They cultivate digestive bacteria (the good kind). The modern human lives in desnse populations, so it's not as needed (you can get nicely re-infected with good bacteria from other humans). There's some speculation that having an appendix also may help with weight control as it correctly maintains balances of digestive bacterias helpful to fight obesity.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

 

 

Thanks Old Soul. Apparently I overstated my claim about the appendix. According to what I've read, it's an organ that is thought to have had more of a purpose when our ancestors were herbivores--at least more-so than we are now.

 

If anybody cares, here is the scientific response to the question about the Appendix

TALK ORIGINS LINK (CACHE SINCE SITE IS DOWN)

OldSoul:

 Mormons just 30 years ago were definately taught evolution was not true.  Section 70 of the Doctrine and Covenants make it VERY clear that death has only been on the Earth in the last 6,000 years.  No death = no evolution.  Acceptance of evolution is common, but it is not Mormon doctrine.  Even in 1989 at BYU there was controversy over it in our Biology class.  

 I recall this also from my seminary classes.

I did find this quote from not so long ago:

...do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories...[the notion that] god used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit is...false. (Boyd K. Packer, The Law and the Light, 21, 24-26, 1988 address to church educators)

 Signature 

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.”
                      -Hypatia of Alexandria

OldSoul:

fdubois:

If god created mankind in his image, then why in the HELL did I go bald by age 25?  All I ever see are pictures of god and jesus all bright and shiny with nice FULL flowing hair.  What I wouldn't give to have god's or jesus' hair!

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that most of the TBMs I talk to actually accept evolution.  But when it comes to humans, they will never take that last step.  They always say, I believe that animals evolved (they justify this by saying that "a day" in Genesis could have been millions of years). Then they say that humans were created by god and placed in the garden of eden.  Wow, talk about mental gymnastics!

 

 Mormons just 30 years ago were definately taught evolution was not true.  Section 70 of the Doctrine and Covenants make it VERY clear that death has only been on the Earth in the last 6,000 years.  No death = no evolution.  Acceptance of evolution is common, but it is not Mormon doctrine.  Even in 1989 at BYU there was controversy over it in our Biology class.  

The Church has a terrible record when it comes to evolution.  They never come outright and condemn it but they always do suggest in a round about fashion that it's incompatible.  I think that the Twelve and First Presidency are split on this issue-as they have been since the very beginning and so depending on who is in power those who don't like evolution are more or less vocal-though those that are for evolution are almost always quiet about it since I think they know evolution bothers a lot of Church members. 

OldSoul:

fdubois:

If god created mankind in his image, then why in the HELL did I go bald by age 25?  All I ever see are pictures of god and jesus all bright and shiny with nice FULL flowing hair.  What I wouldn't give to have god's or jesus' hair!

 

On a side note, I find it interesting that most of the TBMs I talk to actually accept evolution.  But when it comes to humans, they will never take that last step.  They always say, I believe that animals evolved (they justify this by saying that "a day" in Genesis could have been millions of years). Then they say that humans were created by god and placed in the garden of eden.  Wow, talk about mental gymnastics!

 

 Mormons just 30 years ago were definately taught evolution was not true.  Section 70 of the Doctrine and Covenants make it VERY clear that death has only been on the Earth in the last 6,000 years.  No death = no evolution.  Acceptance of evolution is common, but it is not Mormon doctrine.  Even in 1989 at BYU there was controversy over it in our Biology class.  

I absolutely agree with you that LDS doctrine teaches against evolution.  There can be no question about that.  The question of evolution is just another example of how mormons choose which doctrines they endorse, and which ones they don't.  Polygamy is official church doctrine too (D&C 132), but now that it is illegal, they no longer practice it (they just dream of practicing it after death).  This leads to a strong condemnation of the church -- that it changes -- just like any other church.  The church does not contain eternal, un-changing truths, as it claims.

 Signature 

Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer; this is within the capacity of God.  I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting. - Sam Harris

I'm posting this for Maclouie's benefit. He stated that Wikipedia qualifies as a peer reviewed publication. Oh? It does? I suppose that technically it does but it means something completely different when applied to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyhoo, from Maclouies trusted source, Wikipedia, in response to his latest claims that evolution is no more than an "opinion."

Evolution as theory and fact

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

 

The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

 

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

 

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

 

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

 

 Signature 

Jeff Ricks:

I'm posting this for Maclouie's benefit. He stated that Wikipedia qualifies as a peer reviewed publication. Oh? It does? I suppose that technically it does but it means something completely different when applied to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Anyhoo, from Maclouies trusted source, Wikipedia, in response to his latest claims that evolution is no more than an "opinion."

 

Evolution as theory and fact

 

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.

 

The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.

 

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.

 

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

 

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

 

 

 

Great quotes.  I think they do very well to point out concisely that while all science is potentially open for revision there comes a point where in the absense of some extraordinary change in the evidence that certain theories with overwhelming evidentiary support, such as evolution, can be considered fact.

I wanted to pull out 2 quotes I thought were good in that Wikipedia article.

The first sentence:

"The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,^[1] "

Note that -- this is a political dispute, not a scientific one.

Then:

"This debate is most prevalent in generally conservative regions of the United States. There is little serious debate on the subject inside the scientific community or outside of the United States."

I think that says it all. There is nothing more to be said, at least nothing more I'm interested in saying or hearing.

Creationism vs. evolution is the to the larger conservative American Christian community what debates about the truth of BoM are to the Mormon community. Nowhere else in the world is there serious discussion about whether the Americas were settled by Jews who floated here on rafts in Biblical times -- for good reason. There is absolutely no reason (except religious belief) to seriously investigate this question.

I reread my first post. Please forgive errors! I need an editor.