Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#251
#251
Septic said:
Your screen name and the fact that you referenced hogfarmer.com was what lead to the question.

Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored.
Click to expand...

There you go assuming, much the same as you do with macro evolution.

You took a couple unrelated pieces of evidence and jumped to a conclusion that fit you're preconceived notion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#252
#252
hog88 said:
There you go assuming, much the same as you do with macro evolution.

You took a couple unrelated pieces of evidence and jumped to a conclusion that fit you're preconceived notion.
Click to expand...

I asked a question; given the two bizarre references to hogs (your screen name and a odd source of your argument).

Regarding evolution, the "pieces of evidence" are overwhelming in number, most definitely related and generally accepted by science as the most plausible theory to date.

But please, continue smugly citing hogfarmer.com to demonstrate your understanding of human evolution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#253
#253
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#254
#254
Vol8188 said:
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone here denying micro evolution, just macro evolution. When's the last time a bacteria evolved into a fish?
 
#255
#255
Septic said:
I asked a question; given the two bizarre references to hogs (your screen name and a odd source of your argument).

Regarding evolution, the "pieces of evidence" are overwhelming in number, most definitely related and generally accepted by science as the most plausible theory to date.

But please, continue smugly citing hogfarmer.com to demonstrate your understanding of human evolution.
Click to expand...

Hogfarmer.com has better info than anything you have provided to date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#256
#256
Vol8188 said:
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
Click to expand...

Don't equivocate. I don't know many people that deny "evolution". I know people who deny Darwinian evolutionary claims and the theory of common descent. They are different claims.

Dawkins, in Greatest Show... makes a similar equivocation. Bacteria multiply at an incredible rate, thus (as Dawkins says), we get to see millions of years of generations in months and years. You know what we see? Bacteria becoming... wait for it... bacteria! (According to some papers, bacteria that have lost genetic information-- not gained.)

Dawkins points out the effects that selective breeding have had on dogs. He uses that to infer that, given more time, simple life forms "could have", "must have" evolved into all that we see today.

He has moved from the observed to the inferred fluidly. He calls us "history-deniers", but seems to gloss over the fact that we are just denying the history that he has invented with "just-so", nonscientific inferences.
 
#258
#258
Vol8188 said:
So you don't believe that small change over time can lead to large scale change?
Click to expand...

Jumping from one species to another? No.

A salamander who lives in a cave for generations losing its eyes and skin pigment? Yes.
 
#259
#259
Vol8188 said:
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
Click to expand...

Vol8188 said:
So you don't believe that small change over time can lead to large scale change?
Click to expand...

"Can"? Really? I thought it was all proven. I thought that seeing bacteria reproduce was so inscrutably conclusive that you can't believe how anyone could see it and question.

And you come back with "can"?

In the name of science?

Really? Is that what science is now? "Can"? You want to write speculative fiction, send it to Tor. You want to prop something up as "scientific fact", on the order of the earth's orbit around the Sun, base it on something more than "could have", "must have" assumptions.
 
#260
#260
Orange_Crush said:
Don't equivocate. I don't know many people that deny "evolution". I know people who deny Darwinian evolutionary claims and the theory of common descent. They are different claims.

Dawkins, in Greatest Show... makes a similar equivocation. Bacteria multiply at an incredible rate, thus (as Dawkins says), we get to see millions of years of generations in months and years. You know what we see? Bacteria becoming... wait for it... bacteria! (According to some papers, bacteria that have lost genetic information-- not gained.)

Dawkins points out the effects that selective breeding have had on dogs. He uses that to infer that, given more time, simple life forms "could have", "must have" evolved into all that we see today.

He has moved from the observed to the inferred fluidly. He calls us "history-deniers", but seems to gloss over the fact that we are just denying the history that he has invented with "just-so", nonscientific inferences.
Click to expand...

1. Bacteria have been known to interact, and even group up to benefit each other. Which is most likely where multicelled organisms originally came from.
2. Over our lifetime we could never watch the same bacteria long enough to see them evolve into something complelty knew, like a fish as someone else stated. But we do find new species.
 
#261
#261
hog88 said:
Jumping from one species to another? No.

A salamander who lives in a cave for generations losing its eyes and skin pigment? Yes.
Click to expand...

That's odd, dogs and wolves are different species. Do you not believe that dogs came from wolves?
 
#262
#262
Vol8188 said:
1. Bacteria have been known to interact, and even group up to benefit each other. Which is most likely where multicelled organisms originally came from.
2. Over our lifetime we could never watch the same bacteria long enough to see them evolve into something complelty knew, like a fish as someone else stated. But we do find new species.
Click to expand...

Wow. Because we find new species = proof of macro evolution?
 
#263
#263
Vol8188 said:
How is it possible that after seeing bacteria and even viruses evolve at alarmin rates, that anyone can still deny evolution?
Click to expand...

Vol8188 said:
1. Bacteria have been known to interact, and even group up to benefit each other. Which is most likely where multicelled organisms originally came from.
2. Over our lifetime we could never watch the same bacteria long enough to see them evolve into something complelty knew, like a fish as someone else stated. But we do find new species.
Click to expand...

1. Translation: "Must have"?

2. Translation: "We can't actually observe what we're claiming, so we need you to just trust our inference."

That about cover it?
 
#265
#265
Orange_Crush said:
"Can"? Really? I thought it was all proven. I thought that seeing bacteria reproduce was so inscrutably conclusive that you can't believe how anyone could see it and question.

And you come back with "can"?

In the name of science?

Really? Is that what science is now? "Can"? You want to write speculative fiction, send it to Tor. You want to prop something up as "scientific fact", on the order of the earth's orbit around the Sun, base it on something more than "could have", "must have" assumptions.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't proven. I said it can happen. You seem concerned with the idea of something becoming a new species. While it "can" happen, it doesn't have to. Many creatures do perfectly well within their current niche.
 
#270
#270
Vol8188 said:
I didn't say it wasn't proven. I said it can happen. You seem concerned with the idea of something becoming a new species. While it "can" happen, it doesn't have to. Many creatures do perfectly well within their current niche.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly concerned with that, because my beliefs actually mandate that different kinds would eventually evolve into multiple species within that kind.

My primary concern, actually, is what has been observed, not what kind of fiction someone can speculate while passing it off as science.

You seemed concerned that someone could see bacteria evolution without believing in Darwinian evolution, and yet came back with whether be believe it is "possible".

You moved the goalpost.
 
#272
#272
Vol8188 said:
Wow because you seem to expect to watch a bacteria turn into a dinosaur, evolution doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Stop equivocating. He's already said he believes evolution exists. He is questioning Darwinian claims. You indicated they are proven by observation, then passed speculative fiction off as science, and moved the goalpost to see if we at least believe it's possible.

If your position is so strong as to state that you can't understand how we can see bacterial evolution and not believe Darwinian evolution, then you need to come back with more than "can".
 
#274
#274
Vol8188 said:
The ability to form viable offspring. If you can't do that, you can't sustain life. Such as horses and donkeys.
Click to expand...

So, how are dogs and wolves a different species by that definition? I had a neighbor down the road that raised husky/wold hybrids. They threw viable offspring.
 
#275
#275
Vol8188 said:
So all dogs and all wolves can form viable offspring without any human intervention?
Click to expand...

The diversity of dogs is the RESULT of human intervention. SELECTIVE breeding. selected by an INTELLIGENT agent. Despite the existing genetic information being pressed to its limits, a canine is still a canine. Loss of information does not account for the existance of information in the first place.

Yep 8188, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. You are taking one use of the word 'evolution' and then applying it to an entirely different definition.

We observe evolution (change) in bacteria. Therefore evolution (Darwinism) is true.

It's akin to me saying, "The NFL uniform has evolved (changed) over time, therefore Evolution is true."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top