Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…314315317319320…328

Comments

  • #9482
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,593 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    mickrock wrote: »
    I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact.
    In order to make this statement you have to willfully ignore the fact that there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution. You're like a man standing in front of an elephant with his eyes clenched tightly shut shouting how there are no such things as elephants.

    That said, one of the reasons this thread exists is for the purpose of displaying this type of behavior. You are a museum piece to be viewed by people who marvel at how obtuse the human mind can be when it comes to clinging to preferred misconceptions.

    Go you!


  • #9483
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    robindch wrote: »
    Anyhow, as dlofnep implies above, you are not engaging in honest debate. Most other posters, oldrnwisr in particular, are taking considerable time and energy to provide you with detailed responses to your questions. You don't appear to have the common courtesy to reply in kind and instead, just produce one of a a very small number of stock replies. In this forum, that amounts to taking the piss.

    Oldrnwisr gave a description of how natural selection works, all of which I agree with, which is why I didn't reply to that part.

    I don't agree that the small scale adaptations that natural selection can explain can be extended to explain large scale evolution. The evidence isn't there.


  • #9484
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Dades wrote: »
    In order to make this statement you have to willfully ignore the fact that there is mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

    Is there mountains of evidence that natural selection is the cause?


  • #9485
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,042 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    mickrock wrote: »
    Oldrnwisr gave a description of how natural selection works, all of which I agree with, which is why I didn't reply to that part.

    I don't agree that the small scale adaptations that natural selection can explain can be extended to explain large scale evolution. The evidence isn't there.

    3qxc9c.jpg

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #9486
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    The evidence isn't there.
    The evidence is there. In spades.

    If you have a problem with accepting that, then you have to explain why you have a problem. It's not sufficient just to keep repeating "It doesn't work".


  • Advertisement
  • #9487
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    mickrock wrote: »
    I do accept that evolution happened.

    I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

    You keep harping on and on about about natural selection is ''unproven'' and just blindly accepted but yet you have said evolution does happen and you haven't postulated the Intelligent Design nonsense (yet).

    So do you subscribe to any of the other explanations behind evolution? Neo-Lamarckism, the idea that an organism inherits the characteristics developed through its life? What about Orthogenesis, the belief that organisms are affected by internal forces or laws of development that drive evolution in particular directions? Or saltationism where evolution is the product of large mutations that create new species in a single step? Those are the main 4 alternatives that come anywhere near Natural Selection (they've largely been discarded since the development of genetics in the 1920s-1930s).

    So which is it mickrock? Or are you going to continually ignore every request to provide your alternative? If the other posters here knew what your idea behind evolution is, what linear, structured driving force you consider to be the mechanism of evolution to be, then perhaps we can get a dialogue going.

    Until then, you're just pulling the classic routine of standing in the middle of the crowd, fingers in your ears, screaming 'LALALA, no evidence of Natural Selection, LALALA''.


  • #9488
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Barr125 wrote: »
    You keep harping on and on about about natural selection is ''unproven'' and just blindly accepted but yet you have said evolution does happen and you haven't postulated the Intelligent Design nonsense (yet).

    You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?


  • #9489
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    my crock wrote: »
    You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

    Many examples of observations illustrating natural selection have been given to you.

    Elaborate on why they are wrong.

    And don't bother getting another video to make the same claims you are as if that backs you up. It doesn't. It's just reiteration.

    Unlike many here I'm not convinced you're a fool. I think your purposefully engaging in an argument ad nauseam.


  • #9490
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    mickrock wrote: »
    You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

    I'll take that as a "No, I'm not going to answer". Am I right in saying that?

    And how do I clearly believe it has been proven? I never said one way or the other. All I said was that YOU believe it is unproven and asked for your best explanation as to how evolution occurs. I even provided some of the most prime examples for you to argue other posters with.

    (In the words of Achemd, "I can do this crap too!" :pac: )


  • #9491
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    What is mickrock's position here?
    I'm only lurking periodically so it looks a bit odd...

    So evolution happens but selection by natural means does not?
    It seems like a really odd thing to pick...
    I mean clearly some animals survive better than others, breed more and so come to take up a larger wedge of the population pie chart...
    And we know that creatures pass on characteristics to their offspring...
    I'm having trouble with which part of the whole thing mickrock is disputing?

    Mutations cause variation?
    Variations in genes?
    Genes effecting survival?
    Survival effecting reproduction?
    Speciation?

    What does he think is going on?
    Could someone fill me in with some cliff notes?


  • Advertisement
  • #9492
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.


  • #9493
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Sycopat wrote: »
    Many examples of observations illustrating natural selection have been given to you.

    Elaborate on why they are wrong.

    The examples given only show adaptations that don't lead to any increased complexity.

    Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity by adding novel functions, organs or systems. People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.


  • #9494
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Barr125 wrote: »
    All I said was that YOU believe it is unproven and asked for your best explanation as to how evolution occurs. I even provided some of the most prime examples for you to argue other posters with.

    Why do lots of you want to discuss alternative mechanisms to Darwinism?

    If Darwinism is so robust you should easily be able to defend it.


  • #9495
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    mickrock wrote: »
    The examples given only show adaptations that don't lead to any increased complexity.

    Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity by adding novel functions, organs or systems. People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.

    I honestly don't believe you're real. I think you're a Poe spouting off articles from some creationist dictionary website. No one can be this ignorant and off-handed.


  • #9496
    BizzyC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    mickrock wrote: »
    Why do lots of you want to discuss alternative mechanisms to Darwinism?

    If Darwinism is so robust you should easily be able to defend it.

    At this point I'm thinking that you're just trolling.

    Many people have attempted to start a dialogue with you in order to do so, which you've ignored.

    At this point I'm going to fight fire with fire.
    Any further posts you make will be responded to with the following:

    "Darwinism is a valid theory for evolution, you're an idiot."


  • #9497
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.

    I've met a few evolution deniers who seem to have a real problem comprehending the time-scales involved. It's almost like they think a monkey today is a man tomorrow.

    I can sort of see why evolution might seem far-fetched, if you don't understand these time-scales. It's a bit like looking at the Grand Canyon, and refusing to believe that simple natural processes of erosion by wind and water created it, because you can't get a handle on just how long it took those processes to produce what we see today.


  • #9498
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    my crock wrote: »
    Natural selection acting on random variations hasn't been show to increase complexity

    Explain what you mean by 'increased complexity'. As we seem to have different understandings. If what you have can be classified as an understanding.

    (The fun thing about evolution by natural selection is it doesn't just account for advantages arising from increased complexity, but also explains how decreasing complexity can be advantageous....)
    novel functions,

    You are wrong. Richard Lenski's bacteria experiments showed this.
    organs

    You are wrong. Oldrnwisrs post on eye development contains both a good stepwise demonstration on this and plenty of links.
    systems.

    'systems' is a meaninglessly unspecific term.
    People who believe it does must have very vivid imaginations.

    Well it is an advantage for scientists to be able to find explanations for what they observe. You must live in a very boring world if you think a lack of imagination is a virtue.


  • #9499
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    As far as I can tell, he admits that evolution happens; he admits that natural selection happens; but he denies "Darwinism", which seems to be his term for small changes adding up over time.

    I find it really odd... the whole onesided style. I see that a lot, a refusal to present any evidence or even awknowledge evidence presented to them, discarding examples with out giving any justifications... I can't make sense of the behaviour.


  • #9500
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    kiffer wrote: »
    I find it really odd... the whole onesided style. I see that a lot, a refusal to present any evidence or even awknowledge evidence presented to them, discarding examples with out giving any justifications... I can't make sense of the behaviour.

    It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.


  • #9501
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Ziphius wrote: »

    It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.

    But surely that only makes sense for YEC creationists... I mean there are plenty of theists that reconcile the two without trouble.


  • Advertisement
  • #9502
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Ziphius wrote: »
    It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.
    That one always makes me smile. How the grating concept of 'he's his own dad, and he's also a ghost' can be tolerated, but the discordance between evolution and jebus can't be.


  • #9503
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    kiffer wrote: »
    But surely that only makes sense for creationist... I mean there are plenty of theists that reconcile the two without trouble.

    Oh yes absolutely. Mainstream Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican churches, sees no conflict at all. And there are many scientists with theistic or deistic beliefs. I didn't mean to say that one can't accept evolution and have religious belief. Merely that, among a minority, there is a perceived conflict. And in all situations faith is going to win out.


  • #9504
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    mickrock wrote: »
    I do accept that evolution happened.

    I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

    I'm going (against my better judgement) to give you the benefit of the doubt because from your posts it seems to me that you don't have a scientific background and really have adopted your position because you've been taken in by one too many creationists videos that are all flash and no photo.

    Firstly, with regard to the highlighted sentence above, you're right, well kinda. I mean I wouldn't phrase it the way you did but you're not entirely wrong. It's something we call model-dependent realism. Basically, the way our brains interpret the information which comes from our senses is by making a model of the world. As long as this model agrees to what we see then we stick with it. When we see something which conflicts with the model we can choose to either adapt or scrap the model. When we have two models attempting to explain the same observations then we tend to pick the one which a) better explains the available evidence and b) makes the least assumptions. So it is with evolution. Evolution is an observed process in nature and natural selection (descent with modification) is the best explanation we have to explain our observations. There is no other model on the table which comes close to explaining the evidence as completely as natural selection does. It may be that sometime in the future we may discover new evidence which may alter our model but right now it is the best explanatory framework we have and has survived more rigorous testing and scrutiny than any other theory out there (with the possible exception of QM).


    Now as I was saying, I don't think, given your posts that you have a science background because you don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. In the quote above and this one:
    mickrock wrote: »
    You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

    you use the term prove as if that means something. It doesn't. Theory is the highest level of confidence in science. There is no such thing as proving a theory. A theory can only be disproven. Similarly a hypothesis only attains the level of theory once it has demonstrated that the evidence supports it. A theory is not a guess or a hunch or an estimate. It is a well substantiated explanatory framework which explains a wide range of observed facts.


  • #9505
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Ziphius wrote: »

    Oh yes absolutely. Mainstream Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican churches, sees no conflict at all. And there are many scientists with theistic or deistic beliefs. I didn't mean to say that one can't accept evolution and have religious belief. Merely that, among a minority, there is a perceived conflict. And in all situations faith is going to win out.

    I don't see why it would always win out... I mean isn't it basically ****ting on the wonders of creation to turn a blind eye to the nature of that creation?


  • #9506
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    kiffer wrote: »
    I don't see why it would always win out... I mean isn't it basically ****ting on the wonders of creation to turn a blind eye to the nature of that creation?

    Or to quote Galileo:

    "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use".


  • #9507
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Barr125 wrote: »

    I honestly don't believe you're real. I think you're a Poe spouting off articles from some creationist dictionary website. No one can be this ignorant and off-handed.

    Have you met J C?


  • #9508
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Sarky wrote: »
    Have you met J C?
    :D:D:D:D


  • #9509
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Sarky wrote: »

    Have you met J C?

    Has anyone?
    Seriously... anyone?
    I seem to recall that Wolfsbane did claim at one point that he could vouche for J C's credentials but it became apparent that he meant something more like "J C agrees with me, is therefore a good christian, therefore isn't lying about his qualifications as a scientist and mathematician but I haven't actually met him let alone seen where he works or studied".


  • #9510
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    Sarky wrote: »
    Have you met J C?

    Do not speak its name!! Do you want it back in here with us!!!
    kiffer wrote: »
    Has anyone?
    Seriously... anyone?
    I seem to recall that Wolfsbane did claim at one point that he could vouche for J C's credentials but it became apparent that he meant something more like "J C agrees with me, is therefore a good christian, therefore isn't lying about his qualifications as a scientist and mathematician but I haven't actually met him let alone seen where he works or studied".

    You mean her? Isn't one of the tags of this thread that JC is a girl?


  • Advertisement
  • #9511
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    A theory is not a guess or a hunch or an estimate. It is a well substantiated explanatory framework which explains a wide range of observed facts.


    The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation). It explains how an organism can change to a limited degree but not how it got here in the first place. People have been selectively breeding animals for certain characteristics for centuries and have found there are limits.

    The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement