Is evolution a fact?

[AronRa]

So I posted this video to my facebook:


The response I got was this:

The video is simply one mans wrong opinion. Bible debunked? In what world? Yours? It is possible to think it is debunked... Yes that's how you get Islamists and atheists, etc etc... But that does not then mean it is debunked. I noticed it was a speech at INR5... Of course mr. Ra your speech will be accepted there... They presuppose the bible is false so if you say things that agree with their presuppositions... There will be cheering. Just FYI... Again understand.. Atheism is a religion. I know people go around saying it is not.. But under the definition of a religion.. It is a religion. So you can imagine no religion all you like but it is a pipe dream because it is a religion. Look it up. Also there was a commentator here who says "hang them by their entrails". 3 likes. Is this atheist tolerance? Your video was a joke. Please tell me what part was informative? I know of nobody who goes around claiming all this terrorism is done by Muslims. But you claim it.. Can you please name the individual who says this? Evidence? You claim bible has been debunked... Evidence? You think evolution is an established fact.... Evidence? Remember mr. Ra the only reason your video is accepted at the INR5 is not because it is truthful but because it conforms to the atheists presuppositions. I would advise you mr. Ra to research your topic from a neutral perspective.

I replied:

Bernhard Visscher, this video is a list of demonstrable facts, not one man's opinion. You may not know anyone who says that "Islam is the source of all terrorism", but if you don't believe me, look at the new Texas textbooks in social studies, because that's who is saying that. You can even Google it to prove that I'm right.

If you're up to it, I'd be happy to prove to your satisfaction that evolution is indeed a fact in the real world, where the Bible has been disproved on every testable claim that it makes. We do not 'presuppose' this either. Most advocates of reason and rationality are former clergymen, seminary students, and others like myself who have invested decades of concentrated research -beginning from the perspective of sincere believers. So take your own advice. You're the one who hasn't done your homework yet.

For example, you told me to look up what a religion is, which you obviously haven't done yourself. Religion = theism. Atheism literally means "without theism", without religion. So it is not a religion itself. Religion is typically defined as a faith-based belief-system in reverence of a deity, but it can also be a belief that some element of self will somehow transcend the death of the physical body. So atheism meets exactly none of the requirements of a religion. We don't believe in a god or an afterlife. This is not a belief-system, because it has neither required beliefs or prohibited believfs. This is free thought. I'm also an apistevist, which means I must reject faith as the most dishonest position it is possible to have.

So congratulations, everything you've said here is wrong: Except for that comment about hanging dominionists by their entrails. I will not endorse or condone threats of violence.

I provided an example of earlier discussions in this forum, and he immediately accepted my challenge, probably without even looking at what he was getting into. He assured me that he wouldn't be scared off, and he implied that maybe I would be afraid of him.

Bernhard, understand that I'm very busy and will not be able to post every day. So this may take a month or so. The challenge is that I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is a fact. Since I'm going to try to educate someone who is determined not to learn, then I can't just tell you things that you're already pre-programmed to reject. I have to engage you, to get you to think about this, and understand what we're talking about; to agree on what will be acceptable answers. That means we'll have to do a few rounds of Q&A, and you'll be expected to acknowledge certain points in sequence -to confirm that you are learning. The onus is on me, but only as long as you participate. If you repeatedly ignore direct questions or refuse to properly address critical points, you will default this conversation -as every other creationist on this forum has done so far. Do you understand and accept?

 

[AronRa]

If I am to prove that evolution is a fact, then we'd better first establish what evolution is, and what you think it is; because creationists habitually redefine their terms into nonsense not supported by science. I find that the very first step always has to be defining our terms. This is to prevent both strawman fallacies and moving goalposts. No one who ever objected to evolution was able to properly define what it really is, as it is understood by scientists.

The most precise definition you're likely to find is this:
Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

I'll also provide clarifying definitions for a couple of subsets.

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution, the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution, between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

If there is any uncertainty as to what I mean by the words I use, I posted a list of definitions which I can defend as accurate in the specific context of this type discussion. I could cite many references to prove that I'm using the correct terms in this case, but Berkeley Univesity's Evolution 101 should suffice. Do you understand and accept that this is what evolution is?

At any point, feel free to volunteer whatever sort of evidence you would need to see in order to be satisfied.

 

[Visaki]

Welcome to the forum, Bernhard.

As usual I remind both that this discussion can take place in a section where only you two can post as the membership of this forum will start checking claims and challenging assertions like a pack of annoyed chihuahuas if allowed to post. This can be disrupting to a discussion between two people.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Aron, while I agree Atheism is not a religion I'm not sure your equation of religion and theism is sound. Having studied comparative religion, I find the Wikipedia definition is actually fairly reasonable:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Under that definition, you can have an atheist religion but atheism on its own fails to qualify as it is arguably not even a belief and certainly not an organized collection of beliefs.

Chihuahua out.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Welcome to the forum Bernhard. This should be interesting.

 

[AronRa]

Aron, while I agree Atheism is not a religion I'm not sure your equation of religion and theism is sound. Having studied comparative religion, I find the Wikipedia definition is actually fairly reasonable:

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Under that definition, you can have an atheist religion but atheism on its own fails to qualify as it is arguably not even a belief and certainly not an organized collection of beliefs.

As I understand it, theism is a religious belief in a deity. I have argued that there are atheist religions too, Druid, Shaman, animism, pantheism, and Chinese ancestor worship. But every religion universally accepted as such is a faith-based belief-system which includes the idea that some element of self, be it soul, essence of consciousness, memories, or whatever, will somehow transcend the death of the physical body. Under this definition, or any other, atheism still is not a religion, not unless watching watching football and not collecting stamps are religions too.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Hi Aron,

I generally agree with you. Theism usually refers to specific types of gods (sentient creator gods). Belief in that type of god implies certain things about humans relationship with the rest of the world.

So theism implies religion but not the other way around.

However, I disagree that religion requires a belief in some form of post-death persistence. Judaism apparently didn't use to have any such belief.

I would argue that Marxism is a religion - complete with eschatology - but that is probably a derailment.

Anyway, minor quibble. Atheism still not a religion.

 

[Visaki]

Furthering the derailing this thread; can it be said that all religions have a supernatural aspect, or that they are idiologies with a supernatural aspect?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Furthering the derailing this thread; can it be said that all religions have a supernatural aspect, or that they are idiologies with a supernatural aspect?

Confucianism is a religion though clearly nothing to do with "gods".

Theism, as far as I'd define it, is belief in a intentional, supernatural creator-entity, whether a individual or group of gods.

Religion comprises a system of rules based on beliefs - though not necessarily god-based ones.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Confucianism is a religion though clearly nothing to do with "gods".

Theism, as far as I'd define it, is belief in a intentional, supernatural creator-entity, whether a individual or group of gods.

Religion comprises a system of rules based on beliefs - though not necessarily god-based ones.

I agree, though I would add that the beliefs need to define humanity's relationship with the rest of existence, which provides a reason for following the rules.

 

[AronRa]

Hi Aron,

I generally agree with you. Theism usually refers to specific types of gods (sentient creator gods). Belief in that type of god implies certain things about humans relationship with the rest of the world.

So theism implies religion but not the other way around.

However, I disagree that religion requires a belief in some form of post-death persistence. Judaism apparently didn't use to have any such belief.

I would argue that Marxism is a religion - complete with eschatology - but that is probably a derailment.

Anyway, minor quibble. Atheism still not a religion.

Several people have tried to tell me that my definition of religion is invalid, because there are exceptions to the rule. If there were, they'd have a point, but so far, I haven't found any exceptions. There are some beliefs that don't qualify as religions, but are also not typically considered such. Taoism for example. The core of the cannon is that "nature acts without intent, and therefore cannot be said to be benevolent or malevolent to anything". But Taoism is typically intertwined with Confucianism and integrated with traditional Chinese spiritualism, so it becomes a component of religion without being a religion by itself. It is still an independent concept. Confucianism is also not universally accepted as a religion, but it usually does include the idea of a spiritual afterlife -because it is usually associated with Chinese ancestor worship.

I've been told that the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't believe in any supernatural afterlife, but according to the Jewish Virtual Library, they did, and they were the "spiritual fathers" of modern Judaism. So the point remains that every religion is a faith-based belief system holding to the idea that some essence of self transcends the death of the physical body.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Can you provide sources that said transitional fossils are debunked? And no obscure creationist websites, I mean actual scientific peer reviewed articles (hint: you can't). I say this because we are talking science, not make believe. There are actually hundreds of transitional fossils, if not thousands. Ignorance of the fossil record does not mean they don't exist. I've heard paleontologists argue to one another if the fossil they found is a mammal with reptilian features or a reptile with mammalian features. If the experts can't agree then it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that a fossil is transitional. Even creationists don't agree whether our ape ancestors were "fully human" or "fully non-human ape".

Can I ask, what's your background? Age, education etc.? If you don't want to disclose this information, no problem of course.

And please define "genetic information", we don't want an example, we want a clear and concise definition that's quantifiable. And while you're at it, define "kind". You haven't used it yet but if there's anything I've learned in the past few years is that this word will always comes up and is never or just vaguely defined.

But your discussion is with Aron so I'll leave you to it. You seem quite cocky, I'm actually wondering whether you are genuine or just doing this for shits and giggles.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hello

Thank you for the welcome.

I think at this point I can agree with your evolution definitions. I concede micro evolution as scientific fact. Genetic variation accross species has been and is and will be observed. Under your definition this would be micro evolution. I pretty much agree that micro evolution= genetic variation within a species. Example poodle- wolf it's all dog.

So I will not be arguing micro evolution... Far as I know we agree on this.

Macro evolution... I define as an increase of genetic information. Eg.. Single called amoeba- complex human requires an increase in genetic information. Not to be confused with an increase of genetic material.

Evidence required for macro... Transitional fossils... None exist... And by none I mean zip zero. Many are claimed like Lucy, ardi, archeoptryx, the horse line... But every one has been debunked. So you can go down this road mr. Ra but the end is inevitable but your choice... Make it easy for me

Evidence for old earth. Give me your best dating method and I will teach you the assumption. Again you can go down this road... Your choice... Make it easy for me

You can go down the vestigial organ road, vestigial DNA, snowflake yeast, ... Again makes it easy...
At this point I claim there is no evidence for evolution in the sense of gain of genetic information. Micro evolution, I concede the term but not the evolutionary concept... Please be understanding of the difference.

Again your best evidence... Please quote simply, concisely. Eg fox p2 (Dawkins little screwup) . I don't need links, videos,, articles, long essays, after 5 pieces of evidence I will end this conversation. I will debunk all five. After the debunking you will have a choice to either accept creation or remain under the illusion evolution is true. The choice is yours.

As your discussion is primarily with AronRa, although I disagree with your above anti-evolution claims, I'll limit myself to the following:

Just because someone debunks another's claim(s) doesn't mean that the first person's alternative claim(s) are valid.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rando]

Forget asking for a definition of "Information," I want a step by step formula for calculating it. You claim to know how much is in an Amoeba, okay, how EXACTLY did you arrive at that number? Give us the exact methodology for calculating the Information that is in something, cause so far I have NEVER seen a creationist, or "cdesign proponentsists" do it.

 

[AronRa]

I think at this point I can agree with your evolution definitions. I concede micro evolution as scientific fact. Genetic variation accross species has been and is and will be observed. Under your definition this would be micro evolution. I pretty much agree that micro evolution= genetic variation within a species. Example poodle- wolf it's all dog.

This is an important point. Creationists frequently misrepresent evolution by dismissing any newly evolved species of fruit fly or finch by saying that "it's still a fly" or "it's still a finch". The typical misrepresentation is that one "kind" should give birth to a different "kind", such that the daughter group wouldn't even have an evident relation to the parent group. Of course that's wrong. First of all, there's no such thing as a "kind". Secondly it is not possible to evolve out of one's ancestry. Every new species or genus or whatever that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors are. Systematic phylogenetics differs from Linnaean taxonomy in that the parent category (called a 'clade') must include every descendant clade. So the distant ancestors of dogs will still be dogs even if they don't look like dogs. This is why domestic dogs still belong to every ancstral clade as wolves do. This is also why birds are still dinosaurs and humans are still apes. The late Ernst Mayr described this as Darwin's 2nd Law of Common Ancestry, but I think most evolutionary biologists now refer to it as the principle of monophyly.

So I will not be arguing micro evolution... Far as I know we agree on this.

You should also understand that macroevolution is essentially no different, but instead of characteristics identifying a new breed within a single interbreeding species, we would have a new species, which is no longer part of that same gene pool, and wouldn't be restricted or inhibited by it.

Macro evolution... I define as an increase of genetic information. Eg.. Single called amoeba- complex human requires an increase in genetic information. Not to be confused with an increase of genetic material.

It doesn't matter how YOU define it; it matters how science defines it. Your definition doesn't work. For example, creationists often complain that "it takes more 'information' to make a bird than it does a dinosaur", but they won't give any metric to show how much information it takes to make either one. They won't because they can't. If they can't quantify information, then they can't tell whether it has "increased" or not. Some creationists like Ian Juby are happy to say that deletion mutations or chromosomal fusion results in a loss of 'information'; but he won't admit that by that logic duplication mutations would count as increased information, nor that it would therefore take less 'information' to make a human than it would a chimpanzee. This is why you will never find an educational source in evolutionary biology who agrees with your definition; because it's wrong. We're going to have to use the real one, the one that science actually uses.

Evidence required for macro... Transitional fossils... None exist... And by none I mean zip zero. Many are claimed like Lucy, ardi, archeoptryx, the horse line... But every one has been debunked. So you can go down this road mr. Ra but the end is inevitable but your choice... Make it easy for me

Wrong again. We now know of several hundred definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that word.



if you want to argue specifics about any of these, I'm your man. This won't be easy for you, but it is easy for me. The Piltdown hoax was the only one that was 'debunked' that was ever accepted by scientists. Others like Archaeoraptor or Nebraska Man were rejected by every scientist who ever examined them. This leaves hundreds of legitimate ones like Lucy and Ardi, which were never debunked. So your claim here is as wrong as it could possibly be.

Evidence for old earth. Give me your best dating method and I will teach you the assumption. Again you can go down this road... Your choice... Make it easy for me

I'm not afraid of any 'road' we go down, but you seem to be, and that's why you're already posturing.

If you want to talk about methods of dating in deep time, we can take your pick from any of these.
Uranium-lead
Uranium-thorium
Potassium-Argon
Argon40 - Argon39
Rhenium-Osmium
Lutetium-Harnium
Samarium-Neogymium
Rubidium-Strontium
RadioCarbon14
Fission track
Chlorine-36
Luminescence
dendrochronology
varvesice-cores
radiohalos

Just remember that scientists typically use two or three overlapping methods to insure accuracy. Compare this to the creationist approach, which is to misinterpret primitive fables and then pretend that any amount of proof against that may be rejected simply because they'd rather believe the story book.

You can go down the vestigial organ road, vestigial DNA, snowflake yeast, ... Again makes it easy...

...for me; not so much for you. I've forgotten more about this than you'll ever know. So don't try to intimidate me; you can't. I got this.

At this point I claim there is no evidence for evolution in the sense of gain of genetic information. Micro evolution, I concede the term but not the evolutionary concept... Please be understanding of the difference.

Take your own advice. Be aware of the REAL difference. If you accept that microevolution is "small scale" evolution, limited to the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population, then you should know that the actual definition of macroevolution is "large scale" evolution from speciation on. Do you understand and accept this?

Again your best evidence... Please quote simply, concisely. Eg fox p2 (Dawkins little screwup) . I don't need links, videos,, articles, long essays, after 5 pieces of evidence I will end this conversation. I will debunk all five. After the debunking you will have a choice to either accept creation or remain under the illusion evolution is true. The choice is yours.

Here's another choice. I made the challenge, so I make the terms, not you. I estimate that to force the equivalent of a college education into one who refuses to learn any of it will take a minimum of a couple dozen mutual exchanges, and given the amount of time I have to do this, it may well take a couple months. I'm a busy man. However, having already walked this path several hundred times over the last couple decades, I'm absolutely confident that you won't 'debunk' anything. I doubt you'd even know how to do that, and I'm willing to prove that too.

What's more, even if you could 'debunk' anything, that still wouldn't enable me to believe in creationism, because that has already been disproved. Like I told you in another thread, the Bible has been proven wrong in every testable claim that it makes. There is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for evolution, and I'll be delighted to show it to you, but there is nothing whatsoever in support of creationism and a helluva lot to prove that it's all just fairy tales and folklore with no truth in it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Several people have tried to tell me that my definition of religion is invalid, because there are exceptions to the rule. If there were, they'd have a point, but so far, I haven't found any exceptions. There are some beliefs that don't qualify as religions, but are also not typically considered such. Taoism for example. The core of the cannon is that "nature acts without intent, and therefore cannot be said to be benevolent or malevolent to anything". But Taoism is typically intertwined with Confucianism and integrated with traditional Chinese spiritualism, so it becomes a component of religion without being a religion by itself. It is still an independent concept. Confucianism is also not universally accepted as a religion, but it usually does include the idea of a spiritual afterlife -because it is usually associated with Chinese ancestor worship.

I'm not sure what criteria you are using to exclude Taoism and Confucianism other than your definition and the idea that they are not, "universally accepted" as religions.

I've been told that the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't believe in any supernatural afterlife, but according to the Jewish Virtual Library, they did, and they were the "spiritual fathers" of modern Judaism. So the point remains that every religion is a faith-based belief system holding to the idea that some essence of self transcends the death of the physical body.

This Jewish Virtual Library? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

Pharisees believed in an afterlife but as the for the Sadducees:

they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah

Modern Judaism is pretty much entirely descended from the Pharisee branch but Judaism was a religion before that branch became dominant.

 

[AronRa]

I'm not sure what criteria you are using to exclude Taoism and Confucianism other than your definition and the idea that they are not, "universally accepted" as religions.

A number of people, including my class on the history of world religions said that Taoism and Confucianism weren't really religions, or wouldn't really count as such. I heard the same about Theravada Buddhism, but in that case, I was able to prove otherwise.

Pharisees believed in an afterlife but as the for the Sadducees:

they did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the Torah

Modern Judaism is pretty much entirely descended from the Pharisee branch but Judaism was a religion before that branch became dominant.

Judaism also holds that the dead go to a realm called Sheol, essentially the same thing as the Greek Hades.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Mr. Ra

Please give me one piece of evidence. I know you supplied a list but I will only respond to one at a time. Spamming a video, 20 dating methods, etc will not work. I want you to claim that (piece of evidence) is evidence for evolution. Until that time this is simply useless. So again one mr. Ra ... One piece of evidence.

Eg. Lucy is evidence for evolution.

Then we can examine your piece of evidence.

:?:

AronRa[/url]"]Here's another choice. I made the challenge, so I make the terms, not you.

Why not stick to the challenge you accepted?

Furthermore, if indeed all you want to do is go over one piece is evidence at a time, than any regular poster to this forum would be able to do that with you and answer any of your objections to your satisfaction. I see no point in AronRa wasting his time with you since you seem so misled about the basics anyways.

 

[AronRa]

Mr. Ra

Please give me one piece of evidence. I know you supplied a list but I will only respond to one at a time. Spamming a video, 20 dating methods, etc will not work. I want you to claim that (piece of evidence) is evidence for evolution. Until that time this is simply useless. So again one mr. Ra ... One piece of evidence.

Eg. Lucy is evidence for evolution.

Then we can examine your piece of evidence.

The challenge you accepted was that I prove evolution to your satisfaction. That means that you don't get to limit me to one "piece" of evidence, which you may then dismiss according to some pseudoscience apologetic. It means that I have to explain this to you in such a way that you will understand it, so that by the end of this conversation, you will be a convinced evolutionist, and will remain so for the rest of your life. No creationist will ever be able to convert you back, because you'll KNOW better. Instead you'll know how to deconvert them, just as I'm going to do for you.

I can show you the lies of creationism all day every day for the rest of our lives, but this challenge is to show you the truth of evolution, what we actually know and can show to be true. Now I know that your position is one of make-believe. So you've got to come up with some excuse to get out of this, just as I predicted you would do. You didn't realize what you were getting into, and now it's too late. You already know you can't win, and more importantly, you know WHY you can't win. The trick now will be to get you to admit that, if not to me, then at least to yourself.

Now getting back on track: If you accept that microevolution is "small scale" evolution, limited to the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population, then you should know that the actual definition of macroevolution is "large scale" evolution from speciation on. Do you understand and accept this?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

In the interest of keeping thread on topic and the fact I accepted mr. ra's challenge I will be limiting my responses to mr. Ra only.

Perhaps this thread should be transferred, as is, to the Debate forum, so that Aron and Bernard can concentrate on each other, and a separate discussion thread be created for everyone else!?

Kindest regards,

James