|
JudeNebula
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
Hey Greg,
The other thread got shut down, so I figured we could continue our conversation here.
Quote: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Macroevolution is theoretical change which results in new kinds through complex (beneficial) mutations resulting through natural selection. Macroevolution is what theoretically turned simpler organisms into more complex ones, and complex organisms into smarter or bigger ones.
Will all due respect friend. It will do you no good to tell me I'm wrong,wrong,wrong. Especially when, I' not  . I actually know what I am talking about here. Unlike you I have studied evolution, in graduate school and have even written peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Let's think of this topic as me explaining any misconceptions you might have about the field instead of as a debate. Ok?
Now as I said earlier, macro-evolution is just micro-evolution at a longer time scale.
"macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.[7]"
Here is another quote
"Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different."
Quote: Do you agree that millions of very smart people who's life work is to study theology have unanimously come to the agreement that God exists?
No.
Above average intelligence? Maybe. Smart? Possibly. Very smart? No. I simply do not believe that someone can be very smart and be a Christian. I mean, I know there are a few rare cases I'm sure, but I haven't met them. I've never read a theologian who I thought was VERY smart. Not Platinga, not WLC, not Swinburne. Smarter than the average Joe? Sure.
From Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to John Lennon to Stephen Hawking nearly all the geniuses in almost any field of the last century have been atheists.
Quote: Now most doctors know a whole lot more about human anatomy, design, and interaction than do general biologists, and medical doctors are more likely to reject Darwinian accounts of evolution than are the often myopic and lay (at least compared to a medical doctor) biologist... http://www.discovery.org/a/2611
Doctors study how the body works currently. They don't study how the body got to be the way it is. (that is the field of biology). So there opinion is not really warranted. However, of the of course the level of support for evolution in the medical community is top notch. There are 235,740 scientific papers in PubMed that mentioned 'evolution'. and NOT A SINGLE ONE that claims evolution is false.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
gregwilson
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
I reject the macroevolutionary paradigm! Can you not see this! It does no good to have Darwinian evolutionists assert that macroevolution is solely microevolution over a longer period of time anymore than it would be for me to quote Billy Graham or Charles Spurgeon. Anyway, do you accept that for macroevolution to occur new genetic information must arise due to beneficial mutations? Obviously humans have more genetic information than the earliest mammalian form of life. If we evolved from that ancestor, small lateral or downward genetic drift (i.e. microevolution) would not have been enough.
So where are these beneficial mutations, and when in history have we empirically observed new genetic information come about, resulting in a new kind of animal? Scientists are admittedly stuck on this problem, and deflect valid scientific criticism by repeating the nostrum "macroevolution is microevolution + time." Since I define macroevolution as the theoretical upward and more complex change of organisms due to natural selection, and microevolution as the manipulation, recombination, and loss of an organism's current gene pool, this argument is obviously fallacious! Please address the actual critics of macroevolution, which may define terms in different ways than the naturalist. Semantics shouldn't get in the way of you understanding the force of the argument.
Replace the term "macroevolution" with "evolution from lower order to higher order" or "increasing complexity evolution" and "microevolution" with "change within a species" if you'd rather. But the argument is still there, waiting to be addressed by the scientists who believe "incontrovertible proof" exists for Darwinian evolution yet seem more content to argue semantics while uncharitably ignoring the places where the design/evolution debate truly lies.
Quote:
Above average intelligence? Maybe. Smart? Possibly. Very smart? No. I simply do not believe that someone can be very smart and be a Christian. I mean, I know there are a few rare cases I'm sure, but I haven't met them. I've never read a theologian who I thought was VERY smart. Not Platinga, not WLC, not Swinburne. Smarter than the average Joe? Sure.
I don't want this topic to devolve into a debate about who is "smart" and who isn't. The fact you arrived at John Lennon as an example of a "genius" shows you may be tapped out for good examples of bright atheists already. But certainly you aren't denying that a majority of people who have been to seminary are believers in God? A majority of theologians and pastors in the past 300-400 years have been theists, have they not? So why shouldn't I appeal to authority as well, and ask you why you, Jude Nebula layman with little knowledge of theological or philosophical methods, are denying that all these seemingly smart experts are right. After all, what do you know about metaphysical reality that Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Solomon, Leibniz, Newton, Bacon, Jonathan Edwards, Lord Kelvin, etc. seemed to get so wrong?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
vmancha
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Unlike you I have studied evolution, in graduate school and have even written peer reviewed papers on the subject. Care to post one of your articles for review?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
JudeNebula
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
|
Greg,
Quote: Anyway, do you accept that for macroevolution to occur new genetic information must arise due to beneficial mutations? Obviously humans have more genetic information than the earliest mammalian form of life. If we evolved from that ancestor, small lateral or downward genetic drift (i.e. microevolution) would not have been enough.
Evolution can occur without there ever being a mutation. Mutation is just one way that organisms evolve. But there are Four different mechanisms that can drive evolution
1.Mutations 2.Selection 3.Genetic Drift 4.Gene Flow
I do agree however, that new genetic information did evolve over time.
Quote: So where are these beneficial mutations, and when in history have we empirically observed new genetic information come about, resulting in a new kind of animal?
You see this is where you are confused. The very term we have called 'species' is arbitrary. There is no absolute marker that distinguishes one species from it's past species. We declare say homo sapiens a different species from homo ergaster simply because they are different enough that we don't think if homo ergaster still survived today that they could interbreed. But it's not as if there was one day homo ergaster had a kid and that kid was instantly no longer homo ergaster and now homo sapien!
You are always the same species as your parents. You just vary slightly from your parents who varied slightly from there parents etc etc...now of course there will be mutations/genetic drift/selection a long the way.
My cousin was born with six toes. This is a mutation. This is also 'added' information wouldn't you say? Instead of five toes, she now has six! But she is not some new kind of animal! She just has a small mutation that makes her slightly different than her parents, and she could now also pass along this six toe gene to her children.
Besides the one I just gave you about my cousin, we have THOUSANDS of examples of mutations that 'add information'.
It is one of the most common and easily refuted myths about evolution that mutations don't add information.
Check out this article in New Scientist called "Evolution Myths: Mutations can only destroy information"
A quick search through the scientific literature finds tons of examples of novel genes with added information
Evolution of novel genes.SourceDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, 1101 East 57th Street, Chicago Illinois 60637, USA. mlong@midway.uchicago.edu AbstractMuch progress in understanding the evolution of new genes has been accomplished in the past few years. Molecular mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and LINE element mediated 3' transduction underlying exon shuffling, a major process for generating new genes, are better understood. The identification of young genes in invertebrates and vertebrates has revealed a significant role of adaptive evolution acting on initially rudimentary gene structures created as if by evolutionary tinkers. New genes in humans and our primate relatives add a new component to the understanding of genetic divergence between humans and non-humans. On the origin and evolution of new genes--a genomic and experimental perspective.SourceCAS-Max Planck Junior Research Group, State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223, China.
And many many more examples..hundreds more...if you care for me to provide some..
Quote:
I don't want this topic to devolve into a debate about who is "smart" and who isn't. The fact you arrived at John Lennon as an example of a "genius" shows you may be tapped out for good examples of bright atheists already.
Lennon is the pre-emininent musical genius of our time. I don't think that's too debatable. If you want more examples of bright atheists, just look up ANY notable scientist of the past century from Richard Feynman, Dawkins, E.O Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Alan Guth, etc...
Quote: But certainly you aren't denying that a majority of people who have been to seminary are believers in God? A majority of theologians and pastors in the past 300-400 years have been theists, have they not? So why shouldn't I appeal to authority as well, and ask you why you, Jude Nebula layman with little knowledge of theological or philosophical methods, are denying that all these seemingly smart experts are right.
Theologians and pastors are not very bright and obviously biased. If you want to talk about philosophers, we can..
According to the largest survey of philosopher's beliefs
God: theism or atheism?| Accept or lean toward: atheism | (72.8%) | | Accept or lean toward: theism | (14.6%) | | Other | (12.5%)
|
As you can see, only 14% of philosophers IN WESTERN CULTURE (worldwide it would be much smaller) I should add, believe in God.
Now question..Why is your list of scientists who believe in God all from hundreds of years ago?
You know what changed everything? Darwin. Because of evolution we know understand WHAT we are, which changes everything about how we view the universe.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilsonQuote:
Above average intelligence? Maybe. Smart? Possibly. Very smart? No. I simply do not believe that someone can be very smart and be a Christian. I mean, I know there are a few rare cases I'm sure, but I haven't met them. I've never read a theologian who I thought was VERY smart. Not Platinga, not WLC, not Swinburne. Smarter than the average Joe? Sure.
I don't want this topic to devolve into a debate about who is "smart" and who isn't. The fact you arrived at John Lennon as an example of a "genius" shows you may be tapped out for good examples of bright atheists already. But certainly you aren't denying that a majority of people who have been to seminary are believers in God? A majority of theologians and pastors in the past 300-400 years have been theists, have they not? So why shouldn't I appeal to authority as well, and ask you why you, Jude Nebula layman with little knowledge of theological or philosophical methods, are denying that all these seemingly smart experts are right. After all, what do you know about metaphysical reality that Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Solomon, Leibniz, Newton, Bacon, Jonathan Edwards, Lord Kelvin, etc. seemed to get so wrong?
I started a thread for this topic Human Intelligence. I think it's time we addressed the topic openly in its own thread.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
rsmartin
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Quote:
I don't want this topic to devolve into a debate about who is "smart" and who isn't. The fact you arrived at John Lennon as an example of a "genius" shows you may be tapped out for good examples of bright atheists already.
Lennon is the pre-emininent musical genius of our time. I don't think that's too debatable. If you want more examples of bright atheists, just look up ANY notable scientist of the past century from Richard Feynman, Dawkins, E.O Wilson, Ernst Mayr, Alan Guth, etc...
Quote: But certainly you aren't denying that a majority of people who have been to seminary are believers in God? A majority of theologians and pastors in the past 300-400 years have been theists, have they not? So why shouldn't I appeal to authority as well, and ask you why you, Jude Nebula layman with little knowledge of theological or philosophical methods, are denying that all these seemingly smart experts are right.
Theologians and pastors are not very bright and obviously biased. If you want to talk about philosophers, we can..
According to the largest survey of philosopher's beliefs
God: theism or atheism?| Accept or lean toward: atheism | (72.8%) | | Accept or lean toward: theism | (14.6%) | | Other | (12.5%)
|
As you can see, only 14% of philosophers IN WESTERN CULTURE (worldwide it would be much smaller) I should add, believe in God.
Now question..Why is your list of scientists who believe in God all from hundreds of years ago?
You know what changed everything? Darwin. Because of evolution we know understand WHAT we are, which changes everything about how we view the universe.
Can we have a discussion over here re the objective criteria for determining human intelligence? Just posting lists of names of people who believed or worked this or that does not seem very insightful to me when it comes to calculating human intelligence. Life is too complex and the issues too complicated.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Rostos
|
|
Posted 06/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Unlike you I have studied evolution, in graduate school and have even written peer reviewed papers on the subject. Care to post one of your articles for review? He is a liar...... he didnt even knw who Dr Berlinski is, one of the most out spoken and well known critics of evolution, yet he has peer reviewed papers in this subject? LOL
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RostosQuote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Unlike you I have studied evolution, in graduate school and have even written peer reviewed papers on the subject. Care to post one of your articles for review? He is a liar...... he didnt even knw who Dr Berlinski is, one of the most out spoken and well known critics of evolution, yet he has peer reviewed papers in this subject? LOL
I have no idea if he is lying or not (though I see no reason to doubt him), but I don't think knowledge of Berlinski is in any way part of the requirements for gaining a PhD in biology (nor is that a requirement for writing a peer-reviewed paper on evolution). Depending on where you go, and your focus, neither philosophy, nor Intelligent Design, are required elements of an academic syllabus. Even when ID does come up, the focus would be on arguments rather than high profile proponents.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by gregwilson
Replace the term "macroevolution" with "evolution from lower order to higher order" or "increasing complexity evolution" and "microevolution" with "change within a species" if you'd rather.
Yeah, I think this is quite a large problem. Whilst I appreciate the fact you want to clarify your terms, and argue over the content rather the word used (an issue I get very frustrated about whenever the word 'atheist' comes up), the term 'macroevolution' has a very specific meaning. More importantly however, 'higher' does not. Evolution is not a progression from higher to lower order, or from lack of complexity to complexity. Now, you can still ask how complexity comes about, which JN seems to be comfortably explaining, but be careful not to view evolution as having any kind of direction or teleology. It is directionless change that can be filtered by natural selection. We happened to start out as simple, which is why the tree looks like it is increasing in complexity (there wasn't another direction to go in), but that isn't to be read into in any more depth.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Rostos
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by RostosQuote: Originally Posted by vmanchaQuote: Originally Posted by JudeNebula
Unlike you I have studied evolution, in graduate school and have even written peer reviewed papers on the subject. Care to post one of your articles for review? He is a liar...... he didnt even knw who Dr Berlinski is, one of the most out spoken and well known critics of evolution, yet he has peer reviewed papers in this subject? LOL
I have no idea if he is lying or not (though I see no reason to doubt him), but I don't think knowledge of Berlinski is in any way part of the requirements for gaining a PhD in biology (nor is that a requirement for writing a peer-reviewed paper on evolution). Depending on where you go, and your focus, neither philosophy, nor Intelligent Design, are required elements of an academic syllabus. Even when ID does come up, the focus would be on arguments rather than high profile proponents.
Give us a break, he states that he is a peer reviewed scientist and has a PHD in biology.....and yet he doesnt know who the most outspoken and well known critic of Evolution is.....
Yeah, and i am Michael Jordan but i dont know who Kobe Bryant is......
Does he think we are all stupid? Does he think he can come in here think we are all little kids...
We have asked him to provide one one peer reviewed papaer, yet everytime he is asked, he goes missing and avoids it...
I wouldnt be surprised if he is the same person as Evolutionary Physcologist.....wouldnt surprise me at all........
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Rostos
Give us a break, he states that he is a peer reviewed scientist and has a PHD in biology.....and yet he doesnt know who the most outspoken and well known critic of Evolution is.....
Yeah, and i am Michael Jordan but i dont know who Kobe Bryant is......
Does he think we are all stupid? Does he think he can come in here think we are all little kids...
We have asked him to provide one one peer reviewed papaer, yet everytime he is asked, he goes missing and avoids it...
I wouldnt be surprised if he is the same person as Evolutionary Physcologist.....wouldnt surprise me at all........
No disrespect, but I don't think you appreciate how little respect (or even thought) is given to Intelligent Design in the academic community. As far as most biologists are concerned, Berlinski is not Kobe Bryant, he isn't even playing basketball. He's the pitcher in a kiddie league baseball team.
I'm not saying that's fair to characterise Berlinksi like that, but biologists do not spend their time worrying about ID theorists' opinions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Rostos
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoQuote: Originally Posted by Rostos
Give us a break, he states that he is a peer reviewed scientist and has a PHD in biology.....and yet he doesnt know who the most outspoken and well known critic of Evolution is.....
Yeah, and i am Michael Jordan but i dont know who Kobe Bryant is......
Does he think we are all stupid? Does he think he can come in here think we are all little kids...
We have asked him to provide one one peer reviewed papaer, yet everytime he is asked, he goes missing and avoids it...
I wouldnt be surprised if he is the same person as Evolutionary Physcologist.....wouldnt surprise me at all........
No disrespect, but I don't think you appreciate how little respect (or even thought) is given to Intelligent Design in the academic community. As far as most biologists are concerned, Berlinski is not Kobe Bryant, he isn't even playing basketball. He's the pitcher in a kiddie league baseball team.
I'm not saying that's fair to characterise Berlinksi like that, but biologists do not spend their time worrying about ID theorists' opinions.
Its simple, why doesnt he give us one of his peer reviewed papers to look at? Why does he always ignore this request?
Little respect? If Berlinski is a no body, why did Dawkins give up his time to debate him? Furthermore, why did several scientists read his books and give up there time to critique his book?
And Jude doesnt know this guy below YET it seems like everyone knows him...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4491&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20History%20and%20Philosophy%20of%20Science&printerFriendly=true
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Dawkins is specifically focussed on dealing with the Intelligent Design movement. It's what he does. He also wrote The God Delusion, which has next to nothing to do with biology. He isn't representative of what is required of a biologist in their specific field.
Many scientists do focus on ID, as creationism has a history of being pretty antagonistic to science, and the ID movement has gone into equating evolution and the Holocaust. Both of which are personally annoying, but again have little to no bearing on what biologists do as a job.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Rostos
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
Dawkins is specifically focussed on dealing with the Intelligent Design movement. It's what he does. He also wrote The God Delusion, which has next to nothing to do with biology. He isn't representative of what is required of a biologist in their specific field.
Many scientists do focus on ID, as creationism has a history of being pretty antagonistic to science, and the ID movement has gone into equating evolution and the Holocaust. Both of which are personally annoying, but again have little to no bearing on what biologists do as a job.
Every biologist would know of alteranative theories - ID included.
Jade, can say what he wants, but if he is a peer reviewed scientist, it is reasonable to expect that Jade would know of the most out spoken and best known critic of evolution.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 06/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Rostos
Every biologist would know of alteranative theories - ID included.
Whilst most biologists will have heard of Creationism, and Jude has certainly heard of ID, neither of those things qualifies as a 'theory' in the scientific sense. They at best count as hypotheses, and there is no reason to think that every biologist knows every alternative hypothesis to main theories.
Quote:
Jade, can say what he wants, but if he is a peer reviewed scientist, it is reasonable to expect that Jade would know of the most out spoken and best known critic of evolution.
Again, ID is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, so no scientist has any professional expectation to have heard of it. There is no reason, given this, to suppose they have heard of any its proponents either.
Regardless, I am interested in ID, and know a decent amount about creationism. Berlinski is nowhere near the top of the 'people you would have heard in this context list', which would most feasibly go to John Scopes, and I wouldn't expect most scientists to know either his first name, or which side he was on. For ID specifically, Dembski and Behe seem like more prominent names to me, and I still wouldn't expect most scientists to have heard of them.
I really don't want to come across as offensive here, but you are underestimating how much scientists care about ID. It just isn't an issue in the sciences. It's an issue in philosophy, law and theology, but even then the proponents aren't exactly famous names.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
