Is evolution a fact?

[AronRa]

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!?

Is that really necessary? This isn't a debate; it's an education, and this guy is just going to find some excuse to duck out, of it like they all do, anyway.

 

[Prolescum]

It is possible to think it is debunked... Yes that's how you get Islamists and atheists, etc etc...

I'd like to see the timeline you propose for the introduction of the various religions, because I'm pretty certain Christianity is far younger than most of the etceteras implied here.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Is that really necessary? This isn't a debate; it's an education, and this guy is just going to find some excuse to duck out, of it like they all do, anyway.

Understood, Aron - just thought he might try to "duck out" due to everyone else posting responses as well - as some others have at least complained about, if not actually abandoned those discussion.

Kindest regards,

James.

 

[SpecialFrog]

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.

My comparative religion courses took the opposite take. And if yours tried to exclude Theravada Buddhism it seems to me that their definition is either too narrow or it is largely a definition by example.

As I said, the definition I learned in my courses is consistent with the above Wikipedia definition.

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

Sheol was rendered as "Hades" in Greek but that doesn't mean it's original intended meaning was equivalent. There are various passages in the Hebrew scripture that imply that dead is dead and "Sheol" can also mean "grave". Moreover, we know that some groups of Jews interpreted the text to mean that there is no afterlife (as indicated by the source you cited, though I have others). Even if the Sadducees interpretation was novel, does it make their version of Judaism no longer a religion?

I'm not sure why this narrow definition of religion is important to your argument.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernard, while you apparently are not replying to anyone else, I will point out that claiming that there is no evidence for macro evolution is just plain silly. You know that evidence exists since you have mentioned some.

A more reasonable statement would be that the evidence is insufficient for us to claim that macro evolution is likely to be true.

You would still be wrong, mind you.

 

[AronRa]

My comparative religion courses took the opposite take. And if yours tried to exclude Theravada Buddhism it seems to me that their definition is either too narrow or it is largely a definition by example.

I went into a Theravada Buddhist temple, armed with my new definition, intending to test it, and their teacher said that Buddhism doesn't count as a religion, (1) because Buddha was not a god, (2) because they don't believe in any concept of self, and (3) they don't believe in any sort of afterlife, not even reincarnation. They said you can't be born again, because you've never been born before. That's when I pointed out that everyone in that room had a birth certificate.
Moments later, this same teacher said that he prays to Buddha, and that Buddha hears him and can even answer prayers by some miraculous means. So I pointed out that by his own description, Buddha is a magical anthropomorphic immortal who answers prayers and performs miracles. So he is a god after all!
The teacher was losing his patience with me, but he continued. Moments later he said that after you die, you may be a ghost for a while, before you come to live in another body. So I jumped in again, saying "Whaddya mean, after YOU die? You mean 'you', as in your self? The self you don't believe in -will survive beyond death to live again in some other form? That's the very definition of religion!” After that, they didn't want to talk to me anymore.

As I said, the definition I learned in my courses is consistent with the above Wikipedia definition.

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

Sheol was rendered as "Hades" in Greek but that doesn't mean it's original intended meaning was equivalent. There are various passages in the Hebrew scripture that imply that dead is dead and "Sheol" can also mean "grave". Moreover, we know that some groups of Jews interpreted the text to mean that there is no afterlife (as indicated by the source you cited, though I have others). Even if the Sadducees interpretation was novel, does it make their version of Judaism no longer a religion?

I'm not sure why this narrow definition of religion is important to your argument.

In that class, the teacher challenged us to define religion, expecting that it couldn't be done. The definition I provided was based on systematic classification. Religion is a faith-based belief system which includes the notion that some essence of self somehow transcends the death of the physical body. That's what a religion is because that's what all religions are. That definition is not necessarily 'important' to me; it's just the way I understand it. The teacher was surprised that I met his challenge, and accepted my definition because his understanding of Judaism is the same as mine, that Jewish belief was influenced by Zoroastrian and Greek beliefs, and held some notion of a posthumous existence, even if it was very nearly what that Buddhist claimed at first.

 

[Visaki]

Greetings,

Is that really necessary? This isn't a debate; it's an education, and this guy is just going to find some excuse to duck out, of it like they all do, anyway.

Understood, Aron - just thought he might try to "duck out" due to everyone else posting responses as well - as some others have at least complained about, if not actually abandoned those discussion.

Kindest regards,

James.

Personally I'd yes, it probably is necessary. If he only want's to reply to you having a free-for-all makes it all sloppy and unapealing. Don't get hung on the name of the section, the purpose is just to limit posting in that thread to you two, making for a far better and easier to followconversation. The rest of us will be taking on his, and your, claims on the spectator thread.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I agree with AronRa in that this is where the discussion should take place. Bernhard.visscher is an internet nobody, so why give him the privilege of a one-on-one discussion with AronRa? Bernhard.visscher already stated he will only respond to AronRa, thus I do not see this as a problem.

 

[Prolescum]

All atheists are agnostic therefore since agnostic is not knowing, all atheists are ignorant therefore atheism is the protest of the ignorant. Bernhard Visscher.

:docpalm:

 

[Rumraket]

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.

That is a nonsensical definition and not how actual scientists define macroevolution. You should use the one AronRa gave you because it's actually correct.

Now in order to meet your request regarding genetic information, you need to supply a method of quantifying how much information there already is, so that we can see if evolution can increase that information. Right?

So I have one single request for you: How do you propose we calculate the amount of information in the genome of an organism?

Do we calculate the size of the genome in bits? Do we count the number of protein-coding genes? What is your method for determining how much there is?

Single called amoeba- complex human requires an increase in genetic information.

How much of an increase? How much genetic information is there in an E coli cell and how much is there in a human cell? How do you calculate it? We need a method of quantification so we can actually measure if a process of some sort is increasing the information.

Suppose I were to intelligently design two different organisms, how do I calculate which one I have designed the most information into? What am I supposed to measure to determine this?

 

[Rumraket]

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.

I see I'm not the first to ask for this.

This should be the focus of the thread, because our dear creationist seems to have made it his primarily point of denial. A denial of the capacity of evolution to increase genetic information.

The only way such a claim can be made is if there is a way to calculate the quantity of "genetic information". So if our dear creationist can give us a way to calculate the information quantity in genetics, we can then use that method to find out if there are examples of evolution increasing genetic information by doing a before and after calculation.

For example, if we have an E coli cell, we use a formula to calculate the information in it's sequenced genome (it could be 5 megabytes, to pick a number). Then the E coli undergoes a mutation of some sort, maybe it happens many times over several generations.

Then we calculate the information content in it's genome again (and see that it is now 5.02 megabytes, say) and compare the before and after results (5 vs 5.02 megabytes), to see if information has increased or decreased. Makes sense yeah? This is how one would test the claim that evolution can increase or decrease genetic information.

 

[Rando]

I've been trying to find out something about this new creationist, but all I could turn up was a debate on Youtube.



And true to form it does not go well, this guy shows up in the comments but he doesn't do much better there.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I define micro evolution as variation within the genetics of a species.

Here is one of your recurring mistakes. No one cares how you define anything. Evolution, microevolution, and macroevolution already have established scientific definitions. This is supposed to be a discussion about science, thus the scientific definitions should be used. If your arguments hinge upon misdefined terms, what does that say about your arguments?

 

[Rumraket]

I define micro evolution as variation within the genetics of a species.

Here is one of your recurring mistakes. No one cares how you define anything. Evolution, microevolution, and macroevolution already have established scientific definitions. This is supposed to be a discussion about science, thus the scientific definitions should be used. If your arguments hinge upon misdefined terms, what does that say about your arguments?

I second this.

The original challenge AronRa gave you was to prove evolution to your satisfaction Bernhard. That necessarily entails you use the proper definitions in the way scientists use them, which are the ones AronRa gave you.

 

[AronRa]

The challenge I accepted was a) for mr. Ra to give me evidence for evolution...he was going to teach me evolution.l.. Along those lines... b) to answer relevant questions mr. Ra asks of me,

I am telling mr. Ra that in order to give me evidence it must be one piece at a time... Me getting spammed with video and other articles will not convince me, as that is a fallacy of shotgun argumentation.

I believe it only takes one piece of evidence to claim something is fact. I don't build cumulative cases. Don't accept cumulative cases. 20 pieces of false evidence does not equal evidence. One piece of evidence is enough. Hence I ask for one piece of evidence.... The best piece of evidence by the way.

What you currently believe is irrelevant. Soon you'll know better. Whenever you make patently false blanket statements like "every transitional species has been debunked", I will correct you in whatever manner I feel appropriate. We will get into detail soon enough, because, as I said, in order for me to prove evolution to your satisfaction, I have to explain this to you in such a way that you will understand it, and so that you'll be able to confirm it for yourself and prove it to others too. That means giving you just one piece of evidence will not be enough; I'm going to have to teach you more than that, and I will need you to acknowledge your progress along the way.

I accept the definition of macro evolution. I define micro evolution as variation within the genetics of a species. Like dog for example. From a small dog to a Great Dane... It's all dog, but because of all the possibilities existing within the DNA that is the variation attainable. Micro evolution.

Wait, wut? You accept the scientific definition, but you're still using your own wrong definition? No no, that will not do. Gould's Law of Evolutionary Economics has some application here, but your definition is still faulty, because there is no way to measure any imagined limitations or potential extent "within the genetics of a species". So you'll have to change your definition to the real one. Your own personal definition of microevolution also negates your acceptance of the proper definition of macroevolution, because it implies a restriction which scientists obviously do not believe, because none is evident. These are not different processes; it's one continuous one. The only difference between the two is whether they are within or beyond the species level, and thus limited by parent gene pool. Once again, do you accept that microevolution is "small scale" evolution, limited to the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population? Do you also accept the definition of macroevolution as "large scale" evolution from the emergence of new taxa at or above the species level, and every level beyond?

 

[DutchLiam84]

I see I'm not the first to ask for this.

You're actually already the third one!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I've been trying to find out something about this new creationist, but all I could turn up was a debate on Youtube.



And true to form it does not go well, this guy shows up in the comments but he doesn't do much better there.

Having watched this video, it's clear that Bernhard is confusing:

a) atheism and agnosticism;
b) belief and knowledge;
c) unjustified and justified belief, à la Plato.

He also seems to be confused about his four premises: his third premise and conclusion are non sequiturs given the first two premises.

Despite lacking evidence, on the one hand, he doesn't believe that satyrs exist, yet - on the other hand - believes that babies are born believing that God exists. :?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[AronRa]

Having watched this video, it's clear that Bernard is confusing:

a) atheism and agnosticism;
b) belief and knowledge;
c) unjustified and justified belief, à la Plato.

He also seems to be confused about his four premises: his third premise and conclusion are non sequiturs given the first two premises.

Yes he is indeed confused. I notice that he thinks atheists say there is no evidence for or against God. That's obviously not my position. Not only is there absolutely no evidence supporting a god; there's an awful lot of strong evidence against it.

 

[surreptitious57]

What I want is evidence that you yourself believe is evidence for evolution

The entire fossil record is evidence of evolution. Every animal and plant species which currently exist is evidence of evolution. Every
single animal and plant species which has ever existed since the first non self replicating bacteria emerged from the primordial soup
three and a half to four billion years ago is evidence of evolution. So you your self are evidence of it because you are an animal and
a mammal and a primate and an ape and a monkey. You share a common ancestry with all other animals and plants that have ever
existed. And you too share ninety eight per cent of your DNA with chimpanzees who are your closest cousins in the animal kingdom

 

[Rumraket]

Try whales being born with hindlegs.

Example 1: Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs

"I knew, of course, that some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor. ... Whales could be born with a little extra lump of bone which evolutionists therefore insisted was a throwback corresponding to a second limb bone.

However, the spectacle of a whale being hauled out of the ocean with an actual leg hanging down from its side was a totally different issue. I don't remember my exact response, but I indicated that, if true, this would be a serious challenge to explain on the basis of a creation model." (Wieland 1998)

- Carl Wieland

Young earth creationist,
CEO, Answers in Genesis - Australia,
Joint CEO, Answers in Genesis International,
Editor, Creation magazine

Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

For example, Figure 2.2.1 shows the bones from the atavistic legs of a humpback whale. These bones are the remnants of one of two symmetrical hind-limbs found protruding from the ventral side of a female humpback whale, captured by a whaling ship from the Kyuquot Station near the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in July 1919. Two officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company were understandably impressed by this discovery, and they removed one of the legs and presented the skeletal remains to the Provincial Museum in Victoria, B.C. (The other leg was evidently taken as a "souvenir" by crew members of the whaling ship). The museum's director, Francis Kermode, presented the bones to Roy Chapman Andrews from the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York. Andrews reported the findings, along with photographs of the whale from the whaling crew, in American Museum Novitates, the journal of the AMNH.

Figure 2.2.1. Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale.
A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale.
B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A).
C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A.
(Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)