Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate - students question evolution

Christian Science Monitor ^ | May 3, 2005 | G. Jeffrey MacDonald

[plain talk]

Right. climatologists are an exception and make little noise. the point being mainstream academic and scientific communities accept both global warming and evolution as fact. And the real evidence for either is sketchy.

Enough of this. I've said I was willing to entertain evidence. If you have any significant nuggets you've found that directly get at my question then go ahead and point me to them. Seems a reasonable question for a skeptic to ask of someone like yourself who apparently is convinced. Everything I've seen deals with minor changes here and there and nothing pertaining to macro evolution. This "stuff happens over time" argument is not enough for me. Sorry.

[narby]

This "stuff happens over time" argument is not enough for me.

You're the one who acknowledged that "stuff happens". All I ask is for evidence that it stops.

I have never seen even the slimest excuse for a "species limiting gene" that prevents evolution from continuing unabated for as long as life does.

[From many - one.]

But, and I repeat myself, you are not specifying what evidence you would find convincing.

[MacDorcha]

"I have never seen even the slimest excuse for a "species limiting gene" that prevents evolution from continuing unabated for as long as life does."

Of course, we would find this, HOW? Did you think we came upon unlocking the human genome that we had all the answers? Nothing supports "unlimited change", everything supports "viable change"

[plain talk]

Nope. Its the other way around. For people to accept evolution as fact you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it. Apparently it does stop or there wouldn't be creatures unchanged for millions of years flying around us.

[plain talk]

see post 281.

[Dimensio]

So? Who cares if it's enjoyable or not? If we are bent on surviving as a species, why should "enjoyment" play a part?

Because most animals, best we can tell, don't have the mental capability to comprehend a thought as complex as "surviving as a species is good", and the pleasure of sexual activity came about before we developed the mental ability to develop such thoughts.

Then why were the laws made in the first place? They are laws of Man after all.

Because Men wanted them. And for the reason of "why" men wanted them, you again go into psychology and brain science.

Because observation shows that everything has a cause. This would include "everything" itself.

And why assume that this cause is "higher"? What properties do you assume of this ultimate cause, and why?

And again, what has any of this to do with evolution? Are you trying to go off subject because you have no actual arguments against evolution?

[Dimensio]

For people to accept evolution as fact you have to prove it.

No
theory
in
science
is
ever
proven.

[narby]

For people to accept evolution as fact you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it.

You've already acknowledged evolution. But you claim that at some point it stops, but you do not describe the mechanism that causes it to stop.

Sorry. That's just illogical.

[Dimensio]

Again, any evidence other than pure faith to depict a rock solid case for one animal avolving into a completely different animal? I'd love to see it. I'm willing to entertain evidence and go where the real science is.

You've been given links -- such as PatrickHenry's list-o-links -- and you simply dismissed them with a metaphoical wave of the hand. Why are we to take your question seriously?

[MacDorcha]

"Because most animals, best we can tell, don't have the mental capability to comprehend a thought as complex as "surviving as a species is good", and the pleasure of sexual activity came about before we developed the mental ability to develop such thoughts."

Then why do WE have it?

"And why assume that this cause is "higher"? What properties do you assume of this ultimate cause, and why?"

Properties that are not observable by conventional methods. (Hint, it's HIGHER than us. Metaphysically speaking)

I assume these properties are not observable (conventionally) because we have not yet observed them. What would you posit?

If contrary, why? What would lead one to believe in "nothing"?

---

And again, what has any of this to do with evolution?

You missed the post after the one you responded to. Get back to me on that.

[MacDorcha]

Then
how
does
one
know
they
got
it
right?

[narby]

Because most animals, best we can tell, don't have the mental capability to comprehend a thought as complex as "surviving as a species is good",

Actually, I don't think humans have such a drive to keep the species alive either.

Europe and Russia have a declining population, and perhaps Japan. And I think the US would be about at zero growth, except for the "border problem".

[Liberal Classic]

biogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth...

Darwin did not propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning... Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists.

The study of how life might have arisen is not the same as the study of how life changes over time, just as I and others have been saying all along.

However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.

Sure, it's an interesting question and one that deserves study, but hypotheses and theories surrounding a naturalistic origin of life is not the same study of evolution. Evolution is the study of the rates of change in patterns of genes in populations of creatures that occur over time.

You can't have it both ways.

I welcome your most cordial accusation of hypocrisy. :\

[From many - one.]

"Significant nuggets."

OK...ring species.

I'm pretty sure PatrickHenry has links.

If he doesn't I'll provide one.

[plain talk]

No, I've acknowledged small changes in species. That's a different kettle of fish than a monkey turning into a human. Or an amoeba evolving into man. What's irrational is assuming that little changes automatically translate into macro evolution without evidence. Its faith. Its your religion.

[plain talk]

what links? Don't believe I've seen any links posted.

[narby]

No, I've acknowledged small changes in species.

And cannot tell me why you think those changes will stop.

What's irrational is assuming that little changes automatically translate into macro evolution without evidence. Its faith. Its your religion.

Ok. I admit it. I have faith that time exists.

phew, that was tough

[MacDorcha]

post 268, if that helps.

[Dimensio]

Really? In Post 245, narby said "I think there are some good links on Patrick Henry's page as well."

You responded in post 250 with "nope. Nothing on macro evolution."

Did you simply ignore the content of narby's post and spout of a response founded in ignorance, or did you just forget that you'd been directed to links less than 60 posts ago?