The Evolution of Theory: Defining the Debate

Breakpoint ^ | Feb, 16, 2006 | Allen Dobras

[Tribune7]

OK, I'll cite you as an authority too.

[js1138]

Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed? Be specific.

[Tribune7]

Now, that I answered your question, why do you believe something impossible?

[b_sharp]

Why are you going on about such huge saltation events? Evolution does not work that way. You are making and attacking a strawman.

BTW, corn has undergone changes from a wheat-like plant to modern corn. It does change.

Before you go on about humans doing the changing in corn be aware that humans do the selecting only, the changes have to be there for the selection to work. Change is the rule in the universe not stagnation as you propose, just look at the cosmos. Heck, just look at the 2LoT.

[vincentblackshadow]

One fossil away from being proven false? Sorry, but you dont know what you are talkin about.... the theory of evolution would have been the same theory wothout Lucy, the Australopithecus. Lucy was a significant because she was the oldest bi-pedal hominid found.

[vincentblackshadow]

i repeat: there is no denying the truth of evolution except with ego

[js1138]

In what post number did you explain the process or phenomenon necessary for evolution that has not been observed?

[vincentblackshadow]

But, it has been observed by Bible literalists! They must be right because they cant be biased!

[Tribune7]

Post 270

The only way for uniformitarian evolution to occur would be via a miracle.

[vincentblackshadow]

The fact is, there are hundreds of arguments you could bring up against an evolutionist that couldnt be answered. That is because this theory is relatively new and is probably only 60% complete. So, do we throw the most sensible theory of creation out the window, no!

[vincentblackshadow]

uniformitarion? like it all happened at the same time!

[js1138]

Me: Exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed?

You: For uniformitarian evolution to work as it's proponents claim would take a miracle.

Again. exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed?

[Dimensio]

He is noting specifically that they are trying to redefine the word in order to move the goal posts on responsibility and proof.

Kind of like how you redefined the word "species" so that you could prove that speciation does not occur by dishonestly claiming that all corn plants are the same species?

[b_sharp]

"They've recently tried chopping free of macro-evolution completely and are seeking to say that all the change takes place internally till something new is ready in the genes to break forth.. kindof like Evolution is cooking something up in the background that it knows can't work yet, so it doesn't unleash it till it's perfected.

The difference you claim between micro and macro evolution is a creationist construct. Although scientists started using the terms and some still use them the difference is of degree only, not of type as you would have. The creationists tactic of changing meaning to make a point easier to attack is one you use frequently, including in this post. You should ask yourself why you need to create strawmen arguments.

As far as recessive genes lying dormant until a changed selection makes them beneficial, this is a hypothesis that is not accepted by the majority of biologists because it has not been researched fully. If it turns out that it is a reliably observed mechanism it will become part of the synthesis. Note the qualification that it needs to be more than just speculation to be accepted - counter to your assertion.

" evolution with a brain as it were.. The more desperate they get, the quackier the theory becomes. And they don't seem to think the desperation is so transparent.. Morons shifting the game in broad daylight thinking they're hidden from the light.

The theory changes as new information comes to light. New information is a result of more precise measurement techniques and finds in the field as well as in the lab. Would you prefer science not adjust as techniques improve?

Morons? I doubt scientists could be called morons by any intelligence measuring test.

[js1138]

Perhaps our genius evolution critics could name a branch of science that does not change and adapt with new data.

Some of them have mentioned gravity. Anyone care to list the revisions that gravity has undergone in the last few centuries?

[Tribune7]

Again. exactly what process or phenomenon do you believe is required for evolution to work that has not been observed?

First, I want make sure we are on the same page as far as defining evolution. I don't mean changes at the species, genus or even family level. By evolution, I mean all life descending from a single cell via natural selection and genetic mutation/recombination.

[Tribune7]

uniformitarion? like it all happened at the same time!

Ah, no. That's not what uniformitarian means

[js1138]

I mean all life descending from a single cell via natural selection and genetic mutation/recombination.

At what specific point do you believe a miracle is required, and what is your evidence?

[Tribune7]

At what specific point do you believe a miracle is required, and what is your evidence?

Why are you asking for evidence that a miracle occurred? Shouldn't you be offering evidence that one didn't?

[Coyoteman]

At what specific point do you believe a miracle is required, and what is your evidence?

Why are you asking for evidence that a miracle occurred? Shouldn't you be offering evidence that one didn't?

Scientists have come up with a robust and well-supported theory that explains descent from a single-celled organism.

You disagree on some points of this.

Surely you should have some evidence for your position??? That all js1138 is asking for, is some details, some evidence.