Ruse article

FSU professor of philosophy and author Michael Ruse has a piece in the Miami Herald explaining why Charles Darwin and his work are worth celebrating.

What fascinates me about the theory is the way that Darwin realized that he had a problem and how he set out to solve it. The problem is that of convincing people of something that they could never see. Short of having a time machine and traveling into the past, no one is ever going to see the change of fish into amphibians, and then on to reptiles, mammals, apes and, finally, to humans.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Ruse article

  1. Skepticism says:

    It seems strange that evolution could be espoused if “no one is ever going to see the change.” Ruse admits there is NO direct evidence, and that the fossil record is ROUGHLY progressive. To make matters worse, he goes on to admit that Heraclitan flux (everything changes) and Parmenides (nothing changes) are both true, and then states that the logic of evolution is unchanged. But if everything changes, and evolves, so will logic. If logic does not evolve, evolution is false. It ends in nonsense no matter how you look at it.

  2. S.Scott says:

    UMMMM … He said we “often” don’t have direct evidence (we do now)

    150 years ago Darwin had clues and “put it all together” – today we are able to prove him correct.

  3. MaryB says:

    I am glad to see the issue of indirect evidence addressed here. If you look at our new Nature of Science standards you will see two benchmarks: one about inferring from data such as the fossil record and one on constructing models. I have frequently heard sad proof that the anti-evolution crowd has no real understanding of science itself when they make ceredulous statements about how if you can’t see it directly there is no evidence for it. That would rule out atomic theory (excuse me, the theory of atoms) and chemistry, germ theory, earth history, most of astronomy, another words, most of scientific progress to date. Or of course maybe they are just being disingenuous and trying to fool an ignorant public on these issues. If we are going to discard all science that results from indirect evidence we all better start looking for good caves to live in. Thank goodness for Karst topography in th Gainesville area. I am set!

    We need more articles and letters to the editor, etc that address these issues directly. And I and my colleagues have to do a better job of teaching the nature of science.

  4. PatrickHenry says:

    Hey Brandon, do you ever look at your email?

  5. firemancarl says:

    I have frequently heard sad proof that the anti-evolution crowd has no real understanding of science itself when they make ceredulous statements about how if you can’t see it directly there is no evidence for it

    Of course not Mary! The only thing they ( fundies ( have a problem with is evolution. And only because they see it as a direct attack on their deity and holy book. Atoms, meh, who can see ’em and who cares about ’em anyway?

  6. Wolfhound says:

    Funny how the anti-science crowd loves the stupid “if you weren’t there to see it, how do you know it happened” canard yet they are perfectly willing to accept the logic and reality-defying events of the Bible and, indeed, the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, supernatural being that also happens to be silent and invisible. The cognitive dissonance is truly astounding!

  7. Green Earth says:

    I wonder how they (fundies) would respond if you asked them about the “great flood” or other events as Wolfhound pointed out? On facebook I belong to a group called “Creationism isn’t Science”. There is a thread on there about the flood, and other group members were asking for evidence of the flood. One “flood advocate” was on there and kept saying, “you weren’t there in the beginning- you don’t know” but when asked how he knew about the flood, he would site the bible…..

  8. Green Earth says:

    arg- *cite

  9. firemancarl says:

    Of course GE! when all else fails, consult the book! It’s got shite good advice, everything from turn the other cheek to god hates fags! Yep, with advice like that, i’m amazed we’re all not xtian!

  10. firemancarl says:

    Just for use guys!

  11. S.Scott says:

    @fc – That was actually quite nice 🙂

  12. Skepticism says:

    I understand inference in science. No problem. I just don’t see how inference can continue to be maintained if there is direct observations which are contrary to the inferences.

  13. Wolfhound says:

    Good thing there are no direct observations which are contrary to the inferences of ToE, then, isn’t it. 🙂

  14. Wolfhound says:

    Unfortunately for creationism/ID, it is contrary to direct observation. Otherwise known as reality.

  15. Green Earth says:

    FC- have I told you recently how much I love your comments, along with everyone else on here (who lives in the real world of course). All of you are great and make my day, and most importantly, I learn more cool evolution and science stuff!

  16. PatrickHenry says:

    Don’t get mushy!

  17. Skepticism says:

    Who needs Creationism or ID? Science itself cannot produce what evolutionary theory demands.

  18. Wolfhound says:

    Why, obviously, YOU need Creationism/ID for you have no understanding of science and dismiss it out of hand. Pray tell, where do you get your information that “science itself cannot produce what evolutionary theory demands”? I’m certain that the scientists who actually use it in their work would be astonished to see how they’ve been so very, very wrong!

  19. Noodlicious says:

    # Skepticism Says:
    June 10th, 2008 at 12:50 am
    “Who needs Creationism or ID? Science itself cannot produce what evolutionary theory demands.”

    Poor darling. Try taking a little look at the evidence supporting common descent, (Google really is marvelous…access to the science journal database even better….but small steps for you ), then a little fossil record and wash it all down with some biogegraphy.
    If you’re still feeling predisposed to dark imaginings and delusional predisposition next week, try calling your local deprogramming health professional or state mental health institution.

    p.s. Hope your head clears sometime soon 🙂
    All the best.

  20. Noodlicious says:

    *ignorant innocent look*
    I’m really confused here !!
    Why is it no you you has pointed these uninformed people, dying to become aware of the massive evidence supporting evolution, of the availability of the plethora of evidnece???? Really!!

    I mean I know it must be difficult but the facts should be put forward!

  21. Noodlicious says:

    I take back one of my previous “you”s
    It’s needed elsewhere!

  22. ABO says:

    I have to wonder if the problem Darwin had was not trying to convince other people of something they could never see, but perhaps convincing himself of what he was unable to see. No one would say Darwin didn’t have a good theory or that it couldn’t be built on to show its possibilities. You must admit that the concept is constructed of not just visible evidence but of necessity also, other theory guided by imagination. S. Scott says today we are able to prove Darwin correct. Common ancestry is evident all around us, but to what extent? The connection to a single life source remains as elusive as when it was first theorized. The authors’ claim that indirect evidence has clenched the theory is somewhat disingenuous. His example of life being made from the same building blocks does have great merit. It is true building blocks such as LEGOS can be used to put together the White House or the Monster from the Black Lagoon as he said. The problem is not whether similar building materials can be used to construct different structures or organisms, the problem is, can building blocks put themselves together unassisted by an invisible process of self transformation, to create our Black Lagoon Monster? In classifying the fundies as anti-science because they don’t swallow the theory hook, line and sinker you may have to include Darwin himself in the bunch who also had too many unanswered questions.

  23. Noodlicious says:

    ABO Says:
    June 10th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    “I have to wonder if the problem Darwin had was not trying to convince other people of something they could never see,”

    How is it you convince yourself of something you can’t see?
    Never mind…I remember now. Something about one book written a few hundred (thousand) years after initial rumor/story broke…….

    Hail Mithras….
    And of course
    His Noodlyness

  24. Noodlicious says:

    ABO Says:
    June 10th, 2008 at 7:51 am

    “I have to wonder if the problem Darwin had was not trying to convince other people of something they could never see”

    Darwin…wasn’t he that guy with a lot of fundamental sight and observations back around 1850 or so?

  25. firemancarl says:

    GE,

    Thanks! Believe it or not, my knowledge of evolution is very limited. I have learned most of it from sites like pharyngula and richarddawkins.net . I wish I would have paid more attention in H.S., but as we all know H.S. biology classes are the epitome of excitement and learning!

    FROM ABO

    S. Scott …. His example

    Psssst! Dude, he is a she!

    In classifying the fundies as anti-science because they don’t swallow the theory hook, line and sinker you may have to include Darwin himself in the bunch who also had too many unanswered questions.

    Here you are mistaken. Fundies are anti science. The reason they are is that they’re answer is “goddidit!”. It leaves nothing open for scientific inquiry and allows people to become dullards and not think for themselevs. To paraphrase from the video link I posted; If your god was real, why not say things that would take us 100s or 1000s of years to find the answer. For example, if the Bible stated that pi was 3.14……. it would have taken us a long time to get to those remainder numbers. Heck, we would had to wait for the computer inventions to get those answers. There are no cures for disease in the Bible. There is no mention of nuclear ( or nukular -if you’re Dubbya) physics or particle/string theory. There is no mention of the periodic table. i cuold go on, but you get the point. Just imagine, if these things had been covered, I would most certainly believe in your god. Instead, your holy book looks as it truly is. A book written by people who thought the world was flat and didn’t have a grasp of science and used stories of their region passed down from generation to generation.

  26. Green Earth says:

    I have to wonder if the problem Darwin had was not trying to convince other people of something they could never see, but perhaps convincing himself of what he was unable to see.

    Something that can’t be seen…. you mean like god???

    And (today) evolutionary change can and has been seen!

  27. firemancarl says:

    Something that can’t be seen…. you mean like god???

    DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!!!!!

  28. Calilasseia says:

    From ABO:

    “The problem is not whether similar building materials can be used to construct different structures or organisms, the problem is, can building blocks put themselves together unassisted by an invisible process of self transformation, to create our Black Lagoon Monster?”

    Slight problem. Organic molecules are not static, inert entities. They engage in chemical reactions, something we have known about and documented assiduously for 200 years. Untold millions of such chemical reactions between organic molecules are taking place in your body right now. More to the point, organic reactions obey systematic laws that scientists have spent that 200 years diligently uncovering.

    Plus, what part of “evolution and abiogenesis are separate scientific disciplines, the former being the remit of biology, the latter the remit of organic chemistry” do you not understand? Why do reality-denial enthusiasts ALWAYS conflate the two?

  29. Green Earth says:

    Because otherwise they don’t have an argument, oh, wait….

  30. firemancarl says:

    Somethin’ else ABO. I suppose it’s even more a testament to the lack of science in your holy book, that it leaves out things like tardigrades aka water bears. I am willing to bet my entire paycheck, and Brandons too, that your holy book writers had no idea these things exist(ed).

  31. Karl says:

    Oh hey, you know that thing the creationists are always talking about, how evolution has never been directly observed?

    Bam!
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

  32. firemancarl says:

    Don’t worry Karl. I got this quote from a creationist. I posited to John McDonald, and he completley ignored it!

    http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/02/the_shy_fragile_face_of_id.php

    [Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

    As Mr. McDonald would say owned!

  33. Skepticism says:

    I would like to see one real example of a transitional, intermediate form from the Precambrian to Cambrian era.

  34. firemancarl says:

    I would like to see one real example of a transitional, intermediate form from the Precambrian to Cambrian era.

    Here’s a start. You ought to learn how to use the google machine.

    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/New_transitional_fossils

  35. Ivy Mike says:

    Gawd, I hate the spam filter here.

    Skep, go to Wikipedia, type “Precambrian” and “Cambrian” into the search function, and get educated before you ask that sort of thing again.

    To be blunt, asking for transitional BIOLOGICAL forms across GEOLOGIC eras doesn’t make you look anything like intelligent on the matter of science. You’re talking about a period of literally millions of years.

  36. ABO says:

    firemancarl

    I don’t recall mentioning the Holy Book. Does this Book bother you?

    By the way, can you change a waterbear into a monkey? Surly you can.

  37. Skepticism says:

    So, I checked those references and found nothing that could really be considered a transitional or intermediate form from Precambrian to Cambrian. Seems then that evolution is just a wonderful exercise in make believe. And in regard to beneficial mutations, the fact that there are some beneficial mutations, although they are very rare indeed, is not the issue. The problem is that evolution needs beneficial mutations where morphological change is coded, and this morphological change is a new beneficial structure. That has never been observed. And your little horizontal gene transfer referenced above doesn’t make the cut.

  38. firemancarl says:

    I don’t recall mentioning the Holy Book. Does this Book bother you?

    Not in your previous post. However, you have in several other posts. So, please forgive me. Once again, I posit that your holy book is pretty lame on science and you god doesn’t know a heck of a lot about science either, since its’ his book.

    By the way, can you change a waterbear into a monkey? Surly you can.

    Nope, but I can turn your paper money into gold. Just send me everything you have -in a money order, no cash or c.o.d. accepted-and i’ll give you heap amounts of gold.

  39. ABO says:

    Calilasseia

    I am aware that organic molecules are not static inert entities.
    Using, (apparently, organisms are built on the Lego Principle) was probably not a good example for Michail Ruse to use in his article. But trying to give validity to this theorized process, and pin pointing genuine examples of it does require quite an imagination.

    Direct and indirect evidence can be interpreted in many different ways, and this thought is well illustrated in the article which you had previously posted about E coli.

    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

    After 20 years of observation and 44 thousand generations of E coli, it’s amazing that the changes in this bacteria would be notable, considering of other evolutionary claims. After 44 thousand generations, E coli remains E coli with a new diet. Putting 44 thousand generations into perspective is quite revealing if applied to humans. It would appear more reasonable to recognize, this as, simple adaptation to new conditions, rather than a proof we are the decedents of modified monkeys, which has been insinuated.

    44 thousand generations ago at 70 years per generation, could span possibly 3,080,000 years or so depending on who’s counting. 3 million years would put us around the time of our presently favored transition LUCY. So it appears safe to assume that after 44 thousand consecutive generations of ape like creatures, humans could evolve. But E coli would remain E coli.

    So depending on your persuasion, the evidence may not sell well.

  40. Ivy Mike says:

    Skep Sez:

    “So, I checked those references and found nothing that could really be considered a transitional or intermediate form from Precambrian to Cambrian. Seems then that evolution is just a wonderful exercise in make believe.”

    Skep, you’re a liar…

    http:// http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

    This link ALONE provides numerous examples. It’s at FC’s link, above. It’s also a paper that would take hours to read and digest.

    Admit it, you barely skimmed FC’s link, if you even clicked it. Then, as pre-planned, you hand-waved it all away and covered your ears, singing “LALALALALALA!”.

    Once again, a creationist shows that they have absolutely no valid, meaningful contributions to make to science. What a shock.

  41. ABO says:

    firemancarl

    I would have thought your powers far exceeded those of Lego construction.

    Perhaps the God of the bible didn’t want to waste space in His inspired writings. Maybe He desided to leave out the small stuff and just use the important information, knowing we would be unable to comprehend the details anyway. Remember junk DNA and I’m sure your familiar with the scientific term ‘we don’t know yet’.

  42. Ivy Mike says:

    “Perhaps the God of the bible didn’t want to waste space in His inspired writings. Maybe He desided to leave out the small stuff and just use the important information, knowing we would be unable to comprehend the details anyway.”

    And, “maybe”, such an entity simply doesn’t exist at all, and everything we observe has a completely natural cause.

    Let’s see, Occam’s Razor, hmmm…

    “Maybe”, when you use the word, “maybe” so often to justify things that are flatly impossible or totally unevidenced, you should re-think the conclusion.

  43. ABO says:

    Ivy Mike be nice,

    MAYBE- Mr. Skepticism just recognizes that all the Precambrian and Cambrian creatures lived on the bottom the ocean where they were covered by mud, giving the elusion that they evolved there.

    Sorry I like the word maybe. It opens the door to possibilities. I can understand your indoctrination process and that you must conform to the present day atheistic status quo, regardless of reality, but not everyone has your faith.

  44. Skepticism says:

    I am amazed at just how assumptive evolutionists are. They assume that despite the evidence evolution is true, and they even assume that if one questions evolution that they have to be a Creationist. But in science one needs less assuming and more proving. Evolutionists like to assume there are thousands of transitional and intermediate forms in the fossil record, and claim that there are so that the general public generally takes it for granted, but the reality is that these transitional forms don’t exist. They assume that mutations might could bring about coded morphological changes producing beneficial structures, but never has this been observed. We need science in science, not assumptions that parade around as scientific fact.

  45. Karl says:

    You know, if you bothered to actually read/understand the article, you would realize that an observable morphological cannot be the simple result of one chance mutation.

    The follow up with the citrate metabolism of E. Coli showed that only the original colony was able to re-evolve, and only when started at the 20000+ generation, indicating that several previously undocumented chance mutations were required to lay the groundwork for citrate metabolism, spanning several thousand generations earlier.

    At least now, what we DO KNOW, is that no metaphysical intelligent beings went around creating E. Coli with and without the ability to metabolize citrates…

    We need science in science, not assumptions that parade around as scientific fact.

    So I guess Intelligent Design can finally get tossed into the garbage bin then…

  46. Wolfhound says:

    It ain’t worth it, guys. The combined total of man’s scientific knowledge is always, always, ALWAYS trumped by a 3k year old book of myths plagiarized from earlier cultures by a tribe of ignorant, Middle Eastern goat herders. There is no need to look further. It’s all right in there. Don’t know an answer yet? S’okay, God did it! You arrogant sciency people with all your fancy “theories” just STFU, stop asking questions, get your asses to church, and make certain to empty your wallets onto the collection plate, ‘kay?

    Funny how ” the God of the bible didn’t want to waste space in His inspired writings. Maybe He desided[sic] to leave out the small stuff and just use the important information, knowing we would be unable to comprehend the details anyway” means no science but the “important information” consists of who begat whom, who you can and cannot have sex with, and who God says it’s okay to kill in His name. That’s all vital, you know!

    Seriously, fundie trolls, keep poking your fingers into the holes you imagine are in the ToE. Then keep pretending that your religiously motivated objections invalidate a whole branch of science. Then continue to attempt to inject something as improbable and unprovable as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, supernatural being that also happens to be silent and invisible and attempt to call THAT science.

    Once again, shackle your own intellectually benighted children to ignorance if you so choose and do so in the comfort of your own homes and tax-exempt bastions of delusion, but don’t attempt to inject your evidence-free natterings into my kids’ publicly funded education system. If I want them to be intellectually disadvantaged, I’ll take them to church myself. Don’t bring that nonsense into their classrooms.

  47. Ivy Mike says:

    Well Said.

    I’ll only add that the name of this site is “Florida Citizens For SCIENCE”, not “Florida Citizens For Evangelical Christianity On Other People’s Tax Money”.

  48. Skepticism says:

    Where is this science that you talk about? I see a good story with great claims, but great claims require lots of evidence, something evolution doesn’t have. Also interesting is the assumptions here that if one questions evolution they are either Creationists or ID guys. How about someone questioning evolution based simply upon the fact of the lack of evidence for it?

  49. S.Scott says:

    I’m thiiiiiiiisss close to calling “Poe” on Skepticism.

  50. Wolfhound says:

    Skep, if you don’t know where the science is, you are being willfully obtuse/ignorant. Try http://talkorigins.org and have a look around. Also, I note with great amusement that you use a variation of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as a demand that science “prove” its validity when this is NOT that the standard that adherants to mythology demand of themselves. Unlike these adherants to superstitious balderdash, we have empirical evidence on “our” side. Yes, there is a direct correlation between rejection of real science and a belief in religious dogma. Oddly enough, there are many religious scientists who accept evolution as a scientific fact but the only ones who DO reject it do so for purely religious reasons. Pardon me if I call you out as a liar if you claim that you question evolution “simply upon the ‘fact’ of the lack of evidence for it”. The truth is, you question evolution because it is in direct conflict (in your mind) with your dogma. Pure and simple. Try some honesty, fella’.

  51. Wolfhound says:

    If it’s a Poe, it’s not a very good one. I vote for “willfully ignorant”. 🙂

  52. S.Scott says:

    You are probably right. 🙁

    In other news (although OT) Pluto now a Plutoid!

  53. firemancarl says:

    I agree S.Scott, especially since he/she/it didn’t use the google machine!

    Second, and this is for ABO

    Hey, we have, time and again, posted all manner of peer reviewed scientific data to support evolution, until you do the same to back up proof of your god or anything else you write, you will continue to get the same reply from me ; show me scientific data that has been peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal that backs up your claim.

  54. PatrickHenry says:

    Skepticism Says:

    How about someone questioning evolution based simply upon the fact of the lack of evidence for it?

    Okay, I’ll bite — but just once! Here’s some evidence. Now go and troll no more. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

  55. Ivy Mike says:

    “How about someone questioning evolution based simply upon the fact of the lack of evidence for it?”

    In my experience, those who do question evolution on this basis have never bothered to research the information for themselves. Instead, they are simply parroting their pastors or AiG/DI propaganda. Oh, and with the exception of Ben Stein, they are ALWAYS fundamentalist religionists.

    Anyone who claims that evolution “lacks evidence” have never looked at it.

  56. Calilasseia says:

    From ABO:

    “By the way, can you change a waterbear into a monkey?”

    Oh dear, not this tired canard.

    Evolutionary theory doesn’t say that massive genomic change can take place in a single generation. If it did, that would be a direct REFUTATION of evolutionary theory. But then, if the people who posted these canards had bothered to learn any real science, they would know this.

    However, given sufficient time, small mutation can build incrementally upon each other in accordance with well-known and well-documented mechanisms. Which can lead, ultimately, to the generation of entire new phyla.

    Meanwhile:

    “I am aware that organic molecules are not static inert entities.”

    So why did you erect your original canard?

    “Direct and indirect evidence can be interpreted in many different ways”

    But only a subset thereof constitutes a correct analysis of the observed phenomenon. Hint: the right way has nothing to do with fantasies about creatures being poofed into existence by Mr Invisible Magic Man.

    “After 44 thousand generations, E coli remains E coli with a new diet.”

    Actually, if you had read the actual scientific paper, as well as reading that link properly, this has implication for what speciation means in prokaryotes. Indeed this is a question that is exercising minds wonderfully in the requisite circles. W Ford Doolittle is another researcher in this field asking similar questions.

    Plus, your application of the same generational statistics to humans neglects two important points. First, E. coli has a genome that consists of 4 million base pairs. Homo sapiens has a genome consisting of 3.5 billion base pairs, around 90 times as much material. Therefore there is far more material for mutations to work upon. As the relevant scientific literature demonstrates. Second, Homo sapiens is a sexually reproducing eukaryote with meiotic recombination of genes, resulting in far greater dissemination of variation across generations than is the case with the asexually reproducing E. coli, whose reproductive mechanism is effectively mitotic cell division. The daughter E. coli cells are clones of each other. Only when a mutation arises in one of the cells are subsequent generations no longer clones. Human beings are manifestly NOT clones of their parents. As a result of the difference in reproductive methods, important change in sexually reproducing eukaryotes can take place in a time frame considerably shorter than 44,000 generations, as Dobzhansky’s experiments with Drosophila illustrated – he produced a speciation event in the laboratory in just 5 years. The paper documenting this was submitted to the journal “Nature”, which happens to be one of the world’s leading scientific journals, and published by them.

    Meanwhile, from the ludicrously named “Skepticism”:

    “great claims require lots of evidence, something evolution doesn’t have”

    Read any scientific papers have you? I presented 24 of them via a link to a post of mine in a forum that contain evidence for evolution, that funnily enough is accepted by the people who actually know the science. Or are you going to try and erect the specious notion that the world’s evolutionary biologists are all part of some grand “conspiracy” a la Mathis & Stein?

    Just keep pretending that you’re somehow advancing scientific knowledge by denying the validity of observational reality, “Skepticism”, while the real scientists get on with ACTUALLY advancing scientific knowledge because they listen to observational reality instead of the presuppositions of people who wouldn’t know what real science was if it backed an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank into their ribcages.

  57. zygosporangia says:

    The daughter E. coli cells are clones of each other. Only when a mutation arises in one of the cells are subsequent generations no longer clones.

    As a point of clarification, as I find this vastly interesting. Many bacteria and virii have the ability to share genetic information from other bacteria and virii. It is for this reason that, for instance, we give flu vaccines to poultry workers in Taiwan, so that the bird flu doesn’t steal genetic information from a different flu strain that allows it to be transmitted between humans. Likewise, as researchers at the University of Maryland discovered, cholera, an otherwise harmless plankton eating bacteria, got its ability to infect humans from a virus.

    So, it just goes to show that the interactions between single-celled life is far more complex than ID can explain with its “God dun it!” theory of everything. However, when interpreted within the realm of evolution, such things make perfect sense.

  58. Green Earth says:

    ABO said:
    rather than a proof we are the decedents (sic) of modified monkeys, which has been insinuated.

    Jumped into this kinda late, but, this drives me crazy!

    We are not descendants of monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes, and we ourselves are apes. Being that monkeys and apes are both primates at some point WAY back (at least 20 million years ago) there was a common ancestor between apes and monkeys.

  59. Skepticism says:

    Patrick Henry: Your 29+ Graspings for Straws was not convincing. Let me provide just a small example. Your 29+ Article lists the following for bird evolution:

    Archaeopteryx – no doubt a perching bird

    Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx – extremely questionable candidates

    And you guys are the ones calling me a liar? This is the kind of stuff your belief in evolution depends upon? What a joke.

    BTW, your attacks on religious belief are irrelevant. This is about science, not the viability or lack thereof of other positions. I find it amusing that when one attacks your evolutionary belief, you respond like Pavlov’s dogs, salivating about the place with attacks on religion. Just stick with the science. Who cares what your thoughts are on religion. I don’t.

    And Cali, if the papers you refer to are anything like the 29+ Article, which I could expect they would be, I really don’t see why I should waste more of my eyesight on such deceptions. FCS has lost alot of respect in my opinion by referring to such obvious deceit.

  60. PatrickHenry says:

    Skepticism Says:

    This is the kind of stuff your belief in evolution depends upon? What a joke.

    Yeah, you’ve convinced me. I’ve been such a fool! I guess I’ll go try voodoo.

  61. ABO says:

    Green Earth

    Try not to go crazy, I meant no disrespect for your common ancestor. The term modified monkeys is from the article that started this discussion, “And now I will break my promise not to mention science and religion. I believe that the human ability to peer into the past as do evolutionists is one of the most wonderful things that we ever do. If ever I wanted proof that although we may be modified monkeys we are nevertheless made in the image of God, this would be it.”

    You said, “We are not descendants of monkeys. We share a common ancestor with modern day apes, and we ourselves are apes”

    Goodness sake, what can I say, I didn’t know we were apes, I thought we were people. Daaaaaaaa

  62. ABO says:

    Calilasseia

    Somewhat interesting response, thanks. But I can’t see where speciation would give evidence of evolutionary change beyond that species. Common ancestry perhaps, within the species, but not beyond.

    Original canard? You said, “Hint: the right way has nothing to do with fantasies about creatures being poofed into existence by Mr Invisible Magic Man.” So does mean that creatures poofing themselves into existence is not a fantasy? Shazam! Both scenarios are faith based.

  63. Wolfhound says:

    Skep, just wondering why you are bothering to troll here. Just a guess, but I doubt that your decline in “respect” for FCS will cause its members any loss of sleep when you refer to a core concept of biological science as “deceit”. You will remain unconvinced, no matter what evidence you are shown. It is not our duty to educate the uneducable. Your inability to grasp what you are shown and reject it out of hand because it doesn’t conform to your worldview is your own failing.

    You claim to want evidence. It has been provided. That you handwave away the articles offered to you BY AN ACTUAL, WORKING SCIENTIST and refuse to read them (not that you would understand them, I’ll wager) shows the depths of your willful ignorance.

    What WE find amusing (and extremely tedious) are the repeated cries of “show me the evidence” from the religiously motivated when they do not hold their own “scientific” views to the same standards. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the religious grounding of the willfully ignorant is extremely germane with regard to their rejection of evolutionary theory. THIS is why we bring it up, time and time again. THIS is why we call on the agents of ignorance to pony up their own “scientific” evidence for their refusal to accept reality. Clue: Answers In Genesis ain’t science. 🙂 Looking for perceived flaws in the ToE is NOT evidence for a supernatural agent. It’s pure laziness on your part. Your wanting to deny the relevance of your religious stance with regard to your rejection of science proves our point.

    BTW, we LOVE the transitional fossils. Every time we find a new one, another link in the chain predicted by the ToE, reality deniers, like Pavlov’s dogs, can be relied upon to scream, “It ain’t so! Now you need ANOTHER fossil, smarty-pants!” Way to keep the faith, dude!

    If you really want to engage in serious discourse with a boatload of scientists and prove to them that their life’s work is based on a lie, by all means, click on my handle. It will take you to Talk Rational. The assorted biologists, chemists, geologists, neurologists, physicists, archaelogists, and such will have you cryin’ for your mama. Resorting to schoolyard tactics, I double-dog dare you, chickenlips! 😉

  64. Wolfhound says:

    Ah, ABO, the beloved old “we accept MICRO evolution but not MACRO evolution” tactic. A real favorite. It has been likened to somebody admitting it’s possible for me to walk two miles to the WalMart but denying it’s possible that I could ever walk from Florida to California. Much easier to believe I could be teleported instantly, I’m sure. 🙂

  65. Skepticism says:

    Wolfhound, maybe you are the one that doesn’t understand science, as your analogy above shows. And btw, who said I was religious? You did, but I didn’t. And how am I waving my hand when I caught you guys trying to smuggle in three false examples of the evolution of birds? You obviously don’t like being caught in your lies.

  66. ABO says:

    Wolfhound, there’s no tactic, just a reasonable question. Walking to California is plausible, walking to the moon is not.

  67. Karl says:

    Based on your logic, believing that God did it would be like walking to Mars, with an entire dining room set balanced on your forehead, and singing the star-spangled banner, backwards.

    I keep forgetting which of you trolls is which since you all start sounding the same eventually (using the same discredited anti-evolution claims will do that). Are you the metaphysical guy, brain chemical guy, racist southern apologist guy, or the morality guy?

  68. Wolfhound says:

    Skep, I’m afraid that I must add literary devices to the list of things that your education did not encompass. Oddly enough, even ABO “got it”, even if he disagrees with it. Please put the definition of “analogy” up there with the things you need to go study up on. And of course you never said you were religious. If you admitted that you were it would prove our point that, at the heart of it, people only deny the reality of evolution on religious grounds. You have been avoiding the subject of your faith like a vampire does garlic. There, I used a simile instead of an analogy because it might prove easier for you to grasp. See, in this instance, the subject of your religious beliefs is symbolized by the garlic and you are the vampire. Vampires, according to popular myth, cannot stand garlic. Hopefully, you “get” the comparison. But I won’t express much surprise if you’re as willfully obtuse on this one as you are with regard to the evolution of birds. Here’s a huuuuuge thread, filled with some actual scientists and other smart people (plus a silly-billy creationist getting his butt handed to him), going into excrutiating detail about the evolution of birds. http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=216826 Chock full o’ links to scientific papers, too. Since you’re mind’s made up that evolution is a lie (and what was your alternative to ToE again?), though, I’m sure you’ll consider it a “waste of [your] eyesight”. I’d throw in something about leading a horse to water but I’m not sure you’d understand what I was getting at. 🙂

  69. Wolfhound says:

    Ug. “YOUR”, not “you’re”. Running a fever so made one of my pet peeve errors. If I put an apostrophe S on a plural, email me for my street address so you can all come over and slap me.

  70. Green Earth says:

    So what would be “acceptable” evidence of evolution?

  71. Wolfhound says:

    Why, I’m certain that step-by-step transitional fossils which clearly show each teeny-tiny stage of change would be a start but still likely not sufficient since creos REALLY want to see a cat give birth to a dog or a lizard egg hatch a bird or a Crocoduck. Even then I doubt they would accept it. I’m much easier to sway to their side of it. All I need is an amputee to grow back a limb and I’ll be in church a-prayin’ and a-singin’. 😉

  72. Spirula says:

    Thought you all might like this if you haven’t already seen it.

    http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/06/12/intelligent-design-zoos-empty-cage/#comments

  73. S.Scott says:

    All I need is an amputee to grow back a limb and I’ll be in church a-prayin’ and a-singin’.

    Be careful, you might be eating your words soon!

  74. Spirula says:

    Crocoduck

    Think they’d settle for a doat?

    http://66.132.211.220/images_sm/21582.jpg

  75. Green Earth says:

    It just seems crazy that any/all scientific evidence that has presented has been declared “WRONG” or “LIES” or “DECEPTION”

    So lets see if I understand this- 150 years of study, observation and experimentation and MANY MANY MANY scientists are ALL part of a global scientific conspiracy and all of their work and conclusions are ALL wrong?

    Oh, I forgot, “It takes more faith to believe in ToE…”

  76. ABO says:

    Karl
    You said, “Based on your logic, believing that God did it would be like walking to Mars, with an entire dining room set balanced on your forehead, and singing the star-spangled banner, backwards.”

    I’m sure you’re just a little mixed up, but that’s ok. It’s your logic that declares phenomenal feats unassisted by any form of intelligence. From what I can tell computers don’t program themselves.

    By the way, what is anti-evolution?

  77. Green Earth says:

    Arrgh- why do they always use inanimate objects as a comparison?

    Yes, you are correct, computers don’t program themselves, but a computer is a man-made technology, not a living and reproducing organism.

  78. Skepticism says:

    Evolution seems to be the only theory available which intentionally seeks to explain ALL things in natural terms. No one seems to answer the question why all things must be explained in naturalistic terms, only that they must be. That all things have a naturalistic origin is a philosophical assumption (yet you want this philosophical tenet, not a scientific tenet, taught in public schools). It is little wonder that atheists are excited about promoting the theory…so a conspiracy, perhaps, but propaganda, definitely.

  79. Green Earth says:

    Things (in science anyway) are explained in naturalistic terms because they are based on what we observe in nature… we cannot/do not observe the supernatural.

    And AGAIN- ToE makes no claims about how life came to be, it only explains how life has diversified over time going from simple to complex.

  80. Wolfhound says:

    Explainations without a natural origin are not science. They are, by their very definition, supernatural, and have no place in science class. This is very basic. Once again, feel free to teach whatever evidence free supernatural nonsense you choose at home or church but NOT in public schools. Nobody is stopping you so quityerbitchin’.

    BTW, the chemists and physicists and such that I know would be astounded to learn that their work has supernatural elements involved in it, per Skep’s silly assertation.

  81. S.Scott says:

    Explainations without a natural origin are not science. They are, by their very definition, supernatural, and have no place in science class.

    Simple and perfect – Can I steal that please? 🙂

  82. PatrickHenry says:

    Skepticism Says: (June 13th, 2008 at 12:20 am)

    Evolution seems to be the only theory available which intentionally seeks to explain ALL things in natural terms.

    All of science (not only evolution) works with natural explanations. No other kind of scientific work is possible, because the super-natural cannot be tested or even reliably observed.

    No one seems to answer the question why all things must be explained in naturalistic terms, only that they must be.

    Until you can provide us with a reliable angel detector, we’re stuck working only with the matter and energy that can be detected. Don’t hold back; give us the tools and we’ll work with them.

    That all things have a naturalistic origin is a philosophical assumption (yet you want this philosophical tenet, not a scientific tenet, taught in public schools).

    There may be super-natural factors at work, and no one teaches otherwise. But we’re limited in what we can reliably deal with. We teach what we know and can demonstrate. Theologians aren’t limited this way. That’s why there are so many different religions with conflicting claims.

  83. firemancarl says:
  84. Calilasseia says:

    From ABO:

    “And Cali, if the papers you refer to are anything like the 29+ Article, which I could expect they would be, I really don’t see why I should waste more of my eyesight on such deceptions. FCS has lost alot of respect in my opinion by referring to such obvious deceit.”

    Actually, the scientific papers I’ve referred to in the past have been from prestigious journals such as Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, Journal of the Royal Society and similar publications. I suppose that because the results contained in the papers from those journals don’t genuflect before your assertion-laden, evidence-free doctrine, they count as “obvious deceit” in your eyes as well? Congratulations upon showing your biases in this regard. I love the way propagandists for doctrine describe valid science as “obvious deceit” when it fails to genuflect before their doctrine, but somehow spreading blatant and demonstrable falsehoods about the way the real world works in pursuit of that doctrine doesn’t count as such in their eyes.

    Meanwhile …

    “Somewhat interesting response, thanks. But I can’t see where speciation would give evidence of evolutionary change beyond that species. Common ancestry perhaps, within the species, but not beyond.”

    Ah, the false distinction between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” canard, or a variant thereof.

    The same mechanisms apply in each case. The only differences are those of duration and number of cumulative changes built upon the past. Denying this is akin to accepting that stairs can exist, but a staircase cannot.

    “Original canard? You said, “Hint: the right way has nothing to do with fantasies about creatures being poofed into existence by Mr Invisible Magic Man.” So does mean that creatures poofing themselves into existence is not a fantasy? Shazam! Both scenarios are faith based.”

    Oh dear, the conflation of evolution with abiogenesis canard.

    Once again, I shall repeat myself (as I have done for innumerable fetishists for reality-denial doctrines in the past) and educate you. Evolution’s sole remit is the long term behaviour of living and reproducing organisms. Abiogenesis is a separate scientific discipline, and one that is properly the remit of organic chemistry. Since abiogenetic mechanisms are based upon well-known, well-understood and well-documented laws of chemical reaction, no “faith” is involved. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your erecting canards to propagandise for a religious doctrine, will you?

    Meanwhile, looking at this:

    “Evolution seems to be the only theory available which intentionally seeks to explain ALL things in natural terms. No one seems to answer the question why all things must be explained in naturalistic terms, only that they must be. That all things have a naturalistic origin is a philosophical assumption (yet you want this philosophical tenet, not a scientific tenet, taught in public schools). It is little wonder that atheists are excited about promoting the theory…so a conspiracy, perhaps, but propaganda, definitely.”

    Wrong. That real world observable phenomena have naturalistic explanations is not an assumption, it is a conclusion from observational reality. Strange how humans made all these great scientific advances once we adopted this notion, and made hardly any when they resorted to supernatural presuppositions. The evidence should be passing on a big message here. Oh, and it’s not just evolution that is based upon this observation, it is the whole of science. Why aren’t you complaining about the absence of supernatural entities from scientific papers in physics? Or chemistry? Or astronomy? Could it be because evolution upsets your cosy little presuppositions that an invisible magic man made the universe just for people like you?

  85. Green Earth says:

    Don’t you know- the theory of gravity is wrong! We are being held down by “intelligent falling”

  86. Wolfhound says:

    Steal away, Stacy! 🙂

  87. Karl says:

    I’m sure you’re just a little mixed up, but that’s ok. It’s your logic that declares phenomenal feats unassisted by any form of intelligence. From what I can tell computers don’t program themselves.

    From what I can tell, computers don’t naturally assemble themselves from raw materials either or have the ability to reproduce. See the problem with YOUR logic? It’s like saying evolution must be false because my wrench won’t “evolve” into a hammer.

    Are you a gambling man ABO? What denomination of Christianity are you from?

  88. ABO says:

    Calilasseia

    I think you have mixed me up with some one else on the 29+evidences article. But it was rather amusing, it should not be refereed to by someone trying to promote microbe to man evolution.

    From the article. Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
    In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate “microevolutionary” theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

    A question that is left open. I thought this macroevolution deal was a slam-dunk.

    There’s not need to repeat yourself about abiogenists. I haven’t been taking about it, you have. And the only magical man I know is David Blaine.

    Maybe you can answer my question. What is anti-evolution? Everyone knows evolution happens, and everyone knows evolution doesn’t happen. So where do you divide reality from speculation? Where do you divide hard facts from imagination?

  89. Skepticism says:

    So, Cali, science itself has told you that EVERYTHING has a naturalistic origin, or is this an assumption you make when you begin the scientific enterprise? Please distinguish…

    And next time, pay more attention to the posts…it might help you not look so incompetent.

  90. ABO says:

    Karl

    You’re mistaken. I do believe a wrench can evolve into a hammer. The question would be would by what process. And when did I say evolution was false?

    Now Karl, this is suppose to be a science blog. But to answer your question, Christianity is not a denomination. And we are all gambling men. Some gamble with a little some gamble with a lot. Some gamble with their money some gamble with their souls.

    So Karl, was there a climatic event that brought you to the positional belief that your ancestors evolved from lower life forms or was it a slow process over time? I’m sure you have thoroughly examined all the evidence. Are you satisfied with the questionable areas, which are unknown or contrary to the doctrine? Not trying to be cute, just curious.

  91. PatrickHenry says:

    I’m outta here!

  92. Karl says:

    *Beep* We’re sorry. The line that defines where your ignorant sarcasm ends and serious inquiries begin is missing or otherwise unavailable.

    To answer your question ABO, Yes, there was such an event, and I had shared it before in one of the previous 100+ post count flamewars. Don’t feel like repeating it right now so feel free to go look it up. It’s probably generic enough for you to have heard it before anyways. I acknowledge and am dissatisfied with the more questionable aspects of evolution, but I am satisfied that actual scientific research is still being undertaken to find the explanations for these discrepancies. There is no doctrine to speak off, other than the one you and others like you are trying to push.

    What I am thoroughly dissatisfied with is that what you, ABO, are advocating, would effectively put a stop to research efforts. We would lose the drive to find the “why” and settle for one of several dozen variations of “God did it.” Whatever you may claim now, this is the laughable alternative to evolution being pushed right now.

    Let me ask you, is there a reason beyond your largely imagined and overblown scientific discrepancies of evolution theory that causes you to reject it and its implications on your ancestry?

  93. Skepticism says:

    Karl: I don’t understand why scientific investigation would cease if the theory of evolution was dismissed. And in regard to Christianity, there has always been the drive to understand the world which God created. The “Dominon Mandate” of Gen. 1:28,29 is an actual command God gives to man to investigate and research the world. And there are numerous Christians who have taken the dominion mandate as the driving pulse of their science, for example Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. I am sorry but your “if evolution is false science dies” objection doesn’t fly when one examines the history of science.

    Also, you are dissastisfied with some aspects of evolutionary theory, yet you hope that one day these will be ironed out. Why is it that you hope these problems in evolution can be ironed out? Hope is a really out of place feeling when it comes to science, right? It would seem that scientists could hope to discover more and more about the world as it is, but for them to hope that a certain explanation of reality might be shown to be true is another matter…

  94. Karl says:

    What sort of progress or motivation for scientific research could we expect if we accepted “God did it” as an explanation for natural phenomenon? Keep in mind that THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION THAT’S BEING PUSHED AS A LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC THEORY RIGHT NOW!

    Your dominion example is an interesting one. I’m no bible expert, but what does God say to do in cases where research and investigation turns up evidence that contradicts His supposed contributions to the creation of this world?

    A)Ignore/discredit it?

    B)Keep searching for more clues?

    C)Hide your findings and pretend it didn’t happen?

    Garbage such as Intelligent Design certainly isn’t advocating B), and the history of religious oppression of science has consistently been a mix of A) and C), usually under threat of torture or death or some variation thereof.

    I never said I was hoping for anything regarding the unexplained aspects of evolution. I merely stated that I was satisfied with the fact that scientific research was still being conducted in an effort to find the answers. The difference between your “hope” and whatever “hope” you perceive the scientific community of having in its search for answers, is that when a scientific discovery produces answers that weren’t what the researchers were “hoping” for, it will still be accepted after passing scrutiny.

    Dominion mandate aside, to accept ID as fact would be to stop research into the development of species. Ignoring the fact that you would already be ignoring the evidence produced by previous research efforts, by accepting that “God did it,” the logical progression would be to stop all digging of fossils, genetics research, and even field observations, and concentrate your efforts on building some sort of God detector. Good luck with that.

  95. ABO says:

    Karl

    Thanks for your honesty. I’ve met several folks who have had their beliefs affected by unfortunate events.

    You said, “Let me ask you; is there a reason beyond your largely imagined and overblown scientific discrepancies of evolution theory that causes you to reject it and its implications on your ancestry?”

    Yes, there many reasons to reject this overblown evolutionary theory. As to imagination, it was Erasmus Darwin who said, “Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals had arisen from one living filament, which the great first cause endowed with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end.”

    No one can say that Erasmus didn’t have a reasonable concept. Observing the wide range of variation within the plant and animal kingdoms and the similarities each possess this thought could be reasonable. However, his imaginary proposal remains imaginary.

    Science continues to discover amazing things, one of which is the inability of warm-blooded animals to acquire new parts. Observable variations of the same creature may support the idea of common ancestry from a single source but the connection is simply not there. With each biological system there is a built-in resistance to change to or from other kinds of critters. Even within our own kind, heart transplants for instance, require the recipient to take anti-rejection drugs for life, disabling the immune system.

    Gould and others have questioned the gradual change over time from one system to another because the fossil record doesn’t produce evidence for it, but to the contrary. Only through the preconceived manipulation of evidence can the popular path of ancestral decent be shown.

    So common ancestry can be established today through DNA. By this same discovery the thought of common ancestry from a single living filament has been obliterated leaving only hope as evidence. Such information, which spawns variation, isn’t available to step beyond the species. We have lots of vanishing species theme parks but none for emerging species.

    The picture that must be proposed today is not a single phylogenetic tree connected to a single living filament, but rather a vast forest of trees which the great first cause endowed with animality. Regardless of how unpopular this picture is, it is the picture.

    Science as a field has restricted itself trying to defend this unobserved precept.
    The effort exerted trying sell microbe to man evolution is a waste of time, that of course except that an alternate motive is in the works. Myself, being a proponent of the separation of church and state, see the forced indoctrination of this fallacy as a religiously motivated endeavor; is a cause not to promote science but rather to promote a secular humanist religious agenda. Is there a grand conspiracy? Who can say. But those who choose to promote their faith have certainly hijacked the field.

  96. zygosporangia says:

    Yes, there many reasons to reject this overblown evolutionary theory. As to imagination, it was Erasmus Darwin who said

    What, precisely, does Charles Darwin’s grandfather have to do with the price of tea in China? Have you run out of Charles Darwin / Einstein / Gould / Dawkins quote mines? Is this the quote mine of the week over on AIG? Where did you copy and paste this talking point from, troll?

    The picture that must be proposed today is not a single phylogenetic tree connected to a single living filament, but rather a vast forest of trees which the great first cause endowed with animality. Regardless of how unpopular this picture is, it is the picture.

    Care to provide a reference to this bald assertion, so we can tear it to pieces for you? Or, do you prefer to talk out of your ass and not provide citations to back up your claims?

    Myself, being a proponent of the separation of church and state, see the forced indoctrination of this fallacy as a religiously motivated endeavor; is a cause not to promote science but rather to promote a secular humanist religious agenda.

    Riiiight… evolution, which does not make any statement regarding religion, is somehow part of a vast conspiracy to promote your strawman (“secular humanism”), which you build up as a religion that is challenging Christianity. Not only is this argument breathtakingly inane, it is also completely unoriginal. Do you not have anything even remotely relevant to say? Even if there were such a religion (which there isn’t), what would this religion have to do with the validity of the scientific theory of evolution?

  97. Wolfhound says:

    Zygo, you know that declaring the ToE as a religion is the default position of the anti science movement. Perhaps our trolls should start their own blog, Florida Citizens for Science that Doesn’t Contradict Our Narrow-Minded Religious Dogma. Perhaps, then, a more localized version of Behe’s dribblings? 🙂

    Now, I am off to take some new pills to fight this alarmingly antibiotic resistant strain of pneumonia that I have acquired from the kiddies. I really wish these darned bugs would stop evolving!

  98. zygosporangia says:

    Well, all the anti-science movement can understand is religion. If they can reduce everything to religious terms, then they can make a poor attempt at attacking anything. In a different time, this New Scary Religion was heliocentric astronomy, which eventually replaced geocentric astronomy as espoused by the Church. Of course, that’s when Christianity had a scary amount of power, so we can see what happened to poor Galileo because of his support of science.

  99. Skepticism says:

    Karl said: “Your dominion example is an interesting one. I’m no bible expert, but what does God say to do in cases where research and investigation turns up evidence that contradicts His supposed contributions to the creation of this world?”

    Obviously, if God is the Creator of the Universe, and if He is the ultimate author of the Scripture, the information we find in these two realms (nature and Scripture) will never contradict. All truth is God’s truth, and truth is never contradictory.

    If the information discovered in nature appears to contradict that in the Scripture, 1 of 3 things has taken place:

    1) Scripture has been misunderstood and misinterpreted
    2) The scientific data is not mature or exhaustive
    3) Both 1 and 2

  100. Ivy Mike says:

    Skep wrote:
    “If the information discovered in nature appears to contradict that in the Scripture, 1 of 3 things has taken place:

    1) Scripture has been misunderstood and misinterpreted
    2) The scientific data is not mature or exhaustive
    3) Both 1 and 2”

    Which I thank him for, as ONCE AGAIN, a “skeptic” of the ToE has revealed himself as nothing more than an apologist for religion, despite his repeated claims of “not being religiously motivated”, I.E., his lies. All you have to do is wait for a little bit and the Talibornagain can’t help “outing” themselves.

    Sorry, Skep, but your mythology isn’t, won’t ever be, and fails completely as, science, and your pushing to use MY tax dollars to teach it to MY kids is not only unconstitutional, but plain wrong on too many levels to count. Teach your own kids on your own dime. Mine’ll need people to detail their cars after they get their doctorates. I’m sure yours will do a fine job on those rims.

    As for this thread, I’d recommend its closing. Apparently, it has attracted yet another barrage of Evangelical trolls with no scientific opinions worthy of note, and no other goal than to stir up trouble.

  101. Skepticism says:

    Just because I can state the Christian position makes me religious? I can state the atheist position as well (see below). That’s why I started my post with “Obviously IF” Your love for ass-uming things is astounding. And as far as your children go, you speak too soon, for you do not know what a day will bring forth. Tomorrow they might be dead. And it would be no great loss for you, since your theory states that man is just an assembly of molecules, and your attachment to them the result of chemical reactions in your brain. Yep, instead of achieving a doctorate, they might just be lawn fertilizer for my yard. Now you want to continue with the ad hominem Ivy Mike, or should you not honor the FCS blogging code…alot of threads shut down over stuff like this, and its clear you started it (read the posts and then notice how your post starts the ad hominem trail…) Brandon, where’s your censorship now??? Come now, you want FCS to have a good name, but just look here at what your boy Ivy Mike is saying, he is a fine example of FCS.

  102. Ivy Mike says:

    Blah, Blah, Blah…

    Prattling on like a drunken fool doesn’t make your words a bit more valid, or interesting, Skep.

    And you’ve outed yourself quite nicely as just another in a long line of religious trolls we get here. That is, if you’re indeed not a previous one in yet another lame sockpuppet guise.

    Now, toodle off, Sonny…got to get that sleep before getting up early for church tomorrow! Your pastor is waiting for your contributions to his Escalade payment!

    Oh, and BTW, cut down on the drink before posting…compared to your previous posts, it’s sadly obvious that you’ve been into the sauce tonight.

  103. Wolfhound says:

    He WAS sounding a bit like McD there at the end, wasn’t he? Whining about censorship and reduced back to the old “you atheists believe everybody is just molecules, therefor you won’t be sad when your kids die” crap. You know, the tried and untrue dehumanization on those who don’t believe in their stupid god which when then deteriorate further into useless philosophical discussions. Now WHERE have we heard this spew before? Hmmmmm…

  104. Skepticism says:

    Please explain how atheism can rise above life as a “…tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  105. zygosporangia says:

    Skepticism –

    What does atheism have to do with anything? You are losing the discussion here, so you are attempting to shift from anti-science versus science to atheism versus religion. You keep trying to toss in the “evolution is the first step in atheism” canard.

    What’s wrong? Can you not provide facts and scientific criticisms of evolution? You keep claiming that you are interested in scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution, why must you go back to atheism? You are all over the map, and so desperate that you keep shifting your arguments.

    Let’s keep it on-topic.

  106. Skepticism says:

    We have already established that – evolution has weaknesses, too many in fact. There is nothing else to talk about in that area. We have seen that people HOPE evolution will be confirmed. I showed three intentional lies when it came to bird evolution. I am not sure if you can call the remarks made by many of your FCS reps “science.” What more is there to say about evolution other than it is a fluke of a theory because science after 150 years hasn’t provided what the theory demands.

  107. Wolfhound says:

    Leave out the “we” crap. “YOU” have established, in your own narrow, reality-denying, religiously blinkered mind that evolution has “too many weaknesses”. Oddly enough, 99.9% of ACTUAL, WORKING SCIENTISTS who, you know, are more educated than you about the subject at hand, disagree with your position. In this case, it’s an argument from authority that proves out. That you call the bird evolution evidence “intentional lies” says all that needs to be said about you. In 150 the theory has been refined and proven true again and again, making predictions that have been verified. Sorry you don’t accept this. See the reference to the ACTUAL, WORKING SCIENTISTS again. Oddly enough, to bring this back to your religiously motivated attacks again, you and your ilk have had well over 2000 years to provide proof of anything which supports your version of reality. The ONLY people who adhere to your reality denying dogma which rejects ToE are those with a religious motivation. PERIOD. Epic fail! 🙂

  108. ABO says:

    zygosporangia

    Sir Arthur Keith 1866-1955

    “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

    Keith wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of the Species 100th addition.

  109. ABO says:

    Wolfhound

    Malcom Muggerridge 1903-2003 Philosopher and British journalist

    “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future.”

  110. Green Earth says:

    Malcom Muggerridge 1903-2003 Philosopher and British journalist

    That’s a credible source to cite to refute mounds of scientific evidence.

  111. Green Earth says:

    Could you please cite the Keith quote?

  112. Green Earth says:

    I can’t find the Keith quote anywhere, and, the 100th edition of Origin of Species was released in 1959, Keith died in 1955….. hmmm kinda hard to write something after you’re dead.

  113. ABO says:

    “hmmmkinda hard to write something after you dead.”

  114. ABO says:

    You’ll like this quote better.

    Paleontologist Niles Etheridge of the British Museum has remarked: “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, NOT FOUNDED ON OBSERVATION AND WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS….In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”

  115. ABO says:

    Green Earth

    This guy’s name is familiar.

    Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:
    ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.’4

  116. Ivy Mike says:

    Ya just gotta love creationist quote-mining.

    It’s like they never got the memo that it’s a completely invalid debate tactic, not to mention unreliable.

    Their “sources” for many quotes, I.E., their sleazy websites, have a habit of quoting out-of-context, or simply making them up as they go. It’s what happens when you lie on a daily basis.

  117. Wolfhound says:

    Tsk-tsk, trolls. You really should do more research before vomitting forth your nonsense. http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie029.html

    “Scott M. Huse wrote in his The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; 1983):
    Today there are literally thousands of highly reputable scientists representing every scientific discipline who are Biblical creationists….

    Many of today’s most distinguished scientists completely dismiss the concept of organic evolution in favor of Biblical creationism…. [Deleted reference to a industrial non-biologist.]

    [Deleted two dead (and dead when he wrote the book) non-biologists including a reference to a “Nobel Peace Prize in science” that does not exist or for that matter make sense.]

    Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:

    “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”41
    [The footnote at the end of the book is “41Linday, Gordon, Evolution – The Incredible Hoax, Christ for the Nations, Dallas, Texas, 1977, p. 16.”]

    Dr. Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen,

    “I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rotted in the hearts of man.”1
    [Footnote reads “1Acworth, Captain Bernard, ‘Darwin and Natural Selection,’ Evolution Protest Pamphlet, London, 1960, p. 6.”]
    Many other highly distinguished scientists of our day could be quoted who completely reject the evolutionary philosophy….

    [Bold print is mine emphasis.]

    Huse is clearly saying that Dr. Etheridge and Albert Fleischmann are distinguished and contemporary scientists. This is false.

    First let us deal with Dr. Etheridge. As has been pointed out on the talk.origins newsgroup, the his use of the term “transmutation of species.” gives away that this is a quote from the 19th century. Indeed this quote got wide circulation in the 1920s. Ronald L. Numbers1 discussed the use of quote in the evolution/creationism controversies in the 19th century:

    The widely touted “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum,” who always appeared in creationist literature without a given name, was quoted by Townsend as saying, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” The content of Etheridge’s statement varied from work to work, and its source remained unidentified, except for Alexander Patterson’s comment that Etheridge was answering a question put to him by a Dr. George E. Post. When curious parties in the 1920s inquired about the identity of Etheridge, the director of the British Museum surmised that the man in question was “Robert Etheridge, Junr., who was Assistant Keeper of Geology in this Museum from 1881 to 1891,” at which time he left for Australia, where he died in 1920. The director hastened to add that “Mr. Etheridge’s opinion on this subject should not be considered as in any way representing scientific opinion in this Museum.”

    Thus instead of a contemporary distinguished scientists doubting evolution we have an obscure nineteenth century figure that never had any fame at all. In short the creationists have been dishonest in their presentation of the quote.

  118. Wolfhound says:

    I couldn’t find a source for the Keith quote, either, other than site after site that were creationist screeds. Not that it matters, anyway. Argumentum ad quotemineium has never been a very good form of persuasion outside of the pulpit and we here typically don’t give a rat’s patootey what somebody’s opinion is unless it can be backed by facts. Philosophically based opinions are especially worthless. IMHO.

  119. Wolfhound says:

    Tried to put a grin after “IMHO” but it didn’t come through. So, 🙂

  120. Green Earth says:

    Lying for god/jesus is always fun!

  121. Skepticism says:

    And lying for evolution is just in your genes i guess…a chemical reaction in your brain that you can’t control…either you accept evolution and its full implications, or you become inconsistent and then the argument is over…so let me ask you a question – are you in control of your actions or are they determined by chemical reactions you don’t control? Please tell me what evolution teaches here….

  122. Noodlicious says:

    I don’t understand the effects of external/internal stimuli on neurotransmitor transcription and signalling….therefore the FSM directs every interaction and reaction with His Noodly Appendage.
    May He touch your own neuronal transmissions Skepticism and guide you unto some enlightenment….or you could try educating yourself a little.

    p.s. Assuming for arguments sake, such an entity as a *soul* exist….how do you know it is your preferred version of an invisible majic entity which controls it?
    Outdated superstition stories constantly re-edited to suit the political/ social climate of the times don’t count as evidence.

  123. Noodlicious says:

    oooh…look…basic information….NCBI bookshelf

    Basic Neurochemistry: Endocrine Effects on the Brain and Their Relationship to Behavior.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=Relationship,Endocrine+Effects,Brain,Behavior&rid=bnchm.chapter.3505&WebEnv=0XWCGmG96PJ-4BQ8IRwv6jkJ3P4PpJqoNpmy_k6v-OF3XjUwdIeIT5ecfytaf3Etbb4gWCHkkA6Z%40255D083E85789DF0_0075SID&WebEnvRq=1

    Read Skepticism…read!
    Come back you have have a better idea of what you *think* you are waffling on about.

  124. Wolfhound says:

    Skep is likely a John McD sockpuppet. He’s back to the old “chemical reactions” canard to “prove” a soul, therefor God. Yawn. Where have we seen THAT before…?

  125. John MacDonald= *Skepticism*.

    How stealth.

    😉

  126. zygosporangia says:

    Yep. Skepticism is definitely John McDonald.

    Same writing style, same useless canards, same inability to make a coherent argument.

  127. Ivy Mike says:

    In over seven years of watching and engaging creationists on the ‘net, they never cease to amaze me with their delusional arrogance and overinflated egos.

    I mean, does Johnny Mac really think he was being clever or something? Does he really not see that his repeated sockpuppet forays here serve only to make him look like an ever-larger jackass?

    And, does he honestly think that he, with his ZERO scientific training and experience, can overturn modern biology with some “magic bullet” he finds on creationist websites? Only a few minute’s research into any points he and his toadies try to make would demonstrate that ALL of them have been soundly refuted, over and over, for years if not decades.

    I think after my first year or so of watching creationists do their thing on the ‘net, I saw every single argument at least once, and that was six years or so ago. They have yet to come up with anything new or interesting at all.

    Truly, they are pathetic. Sad, too, is the fact that at least some of them show a rudimentary ability to write coherent thoughts and function in society (at least to some extent). One would think that after a dozen or so thrashings by real scientists, they’d begin to get some sort of clue.

    Even children eventually realize there’s no Santa Clause. It’s called “maturity”.

  128. Karl says:

    Good ole racist Johnny McD… burn any crosses lately? He’s been here trying to pass off his rejection of evolution as being “faithful to the scripture” when in reality, he, like the founders of his religious organization, are afraid that the implication made under Darwin’s theories would reduce their notion of racial superiority over minorities to a few thousand nucleotide’s worth of insignificant genetic differences. Keep on flying the Stars and Bars!

    Remeber folks! Rejection of evolution in favor of religious fundamentalism is inherently racist and leads to genocide and mass murder!

  129. Green Earth says:

    They also seem to forget, even though it has been stated several times in various threads:

    If evolution is disproved, it does not prove god/creationism/ID.

  130. zygosporangia says:

    GE –

    They don’t care about proving or disproving evolution. All they care about is injecting enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt to leave room for their fragile beliefs. Their god is a god of literal interpretation of fairy tales. If the measurements given in their story book is off by one micron, if a single prophesy is found to be untrue, if a single passage is discredited… their shaky belief system comes crashing down. Because of their inability to discern faith from reality, they must lash out at anything that questions their literal beliefs. They drink poison and take up snakes to test their faith, for their bible tells them to do so.

    The Christians who attack evolution are in a fringe group, desperate to bring attention to themselves through theatrical displays, hoping to steal away the occasional member of mainstream Christianity. They are the same sorts of people who protest the funerals of soldiers, who blame 9/11 on atheists and mainstream Christians. They are one step away from Taliban, from trying to legislate theocracy. This is why they attempt the Wedge strategy, why they see bills like the so-called “Academic Freedom” bill as important. It is not enough that they must endure their kooky beliefs. They must force their fringe and minority beliefs down the throats of everyone.

  131. ABO says:

    zygosporangia

    It’s fun to listen to you rambling on with your self assessed superior knowledge of science and religion. What’s impresses me the most is your ability to suck up junk science and keep your composure.

    I know this is supposed to be a science blog, but it would appear that science is of little interest here. With your apparent vast knowledge of biblical revelation how would you interpret the present day middle east situation. With all the prophesied events shaping up how does your flock address these facts? Do you think digging up dead monkeys will keep evolutionist focused away from what’s happening.

    Also being an advocate of one of the world’s largest faith based religious cults, how do you fell about being stuck in a country that has its foundation constructed on biblical principals? Wouldn’t you rather be some where else?

  132. Wolfhound says:

    ABO, you presuming to know what science is “junk” (anything that contradicts your Biblical literalism, apparently) is laughable. The present day Middle East situation is due mostly to our Idiot In Chief believing that his imaginary friend in the sky told him to start a crusade. I’m a registered Republican, BTW, and couldn’t bring myself to vote for the man. Once again, your default position is to ascribe “prophecy” to current events, ad hoc. For something to have been prophesized, you have to see it coming, not interpret the events after the fact to fit what you twist the scripture to mean. You’re no better than the Nostradamis morons who think he prophesized the events of 911. I’m sure you and your fellow death cultists are looking at all of the carnage in the Middle East with glee, hoping it’ll jump-start Armageddon so your asses can be raptured out of here. Seriously, dude, you silly-billies have been proclaiming “the end is nigh” since shortly after they supposedly nailed Jesus to a tree. That anybody could believe anything in the Bible (where is Tyre again? I can’t seem to find it on a map), much less that ridiculous acid trip called Revelations is prophecy speaks volumes as to the credulousness and delusional state of people who hate their present state of being so much that they want to believe that there is something else upon their deaths. Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with science.

    Get over your projection about religious cults. Equating science, and ToE in particular, to a religion is a worn out old canard that is the height of banality. Same goes for the wishful thinking historic revisionism you christobots love to spew. Go read the Constitution. Let us all know how many references to God, Jesus, and the Bible you find beyond “in the year of our lord” for the date. You trolls really need some new material. Don’t you have a flock of credulous sheeple to go syphon some more money out of instead of treading in waters that are well over your head here? Go run and play now.

  133. Don Read says:

    ABO:

    Sir Arthur Keith 1866-1955

    “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

    Keith wrote the forward to Darwin’s Origin of the Species 100th addition.

    As you’ve discovered, getting your dates & quotes from answersingenesis is always a bad idea.

    In the 1928 edition (not the 100th addition), on describing Darwin’s arrival at the Galapagos Islands, Keith writes:
    “And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things.”
    — and later he writes:
    “The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true.”

    Of course, AIG doesn’t mention these quotes because it’s obvious that Keith believes in evolution, –not because he doesn’t like the alternatives, but because he believes evolution to be true.

  134. Green Earth says:

    ABO- you mention “junk science” again I will ask my question:

    What is acceptable science/evidence (according to you)?

  135. Noodlicious says:

    Wolfhound
    “That anybody could believe anything in the Bible (where is Tyre again? I can’t seem to find it on a map), much less that ridiculous acid trip called Revelations is prophecy”

    You think it was acid? I’ve always thought maybe the authors were consuming Datura.

  136. zygosporangia says:

    With your apparent vast knowledge of biblical revelation how would you interpret the present day middle east situation. With all the prophesied events shaping up how does your flock address these facts?

    To quote Yoda in Star Wars Episode 3: “A prophesy… misread, could have been.” Religious cults have been turning to biblical prophecy looking for end-times events for nearly two thousand years now. Without a single exception, each and every one has been mistaken. Many of these cults have walled themselves into caves to starve, or have chosen mass suicide in the mistaken belief that the rapture was at hand, and they were uniquely able to be taken. Why do you think that your kooky belief in end-times prophecy is correct, when so many before you have had just as much justification for their beliefs and have been wrong?

    Just remember, folks, ABO is a prime example of the sorts of folks looking to legislate away science.

    What’s impresses me the most is your ability to suck up junk science and keep your composure.

    Care to elaborate about your belief that evolution is junk science? I’d love to tear your ignorant position to shreds.

    how do you fell about being stuck in a country that has its foundation constructed on biblical principals? Wouldn’t you rather be some where else?

    ABO, I don’t know what country you are in (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia…), but I live in the United States. Our country was founded on secular beliefs. Most of our founding fathers were Deists or atheists, both of which is a far cry from your obvious evangelical Christian beliefs. If you bothered to read a book on history, you would know this.

    Should I provide you with quotes from the founding fathers showing their beliefs in religion, especially fundamentalist quackery like yours?

  137. Skepticism says:

    So I point out something that is a clear implication of evolution, i.e. determinism, and the best response is that I am someone else. How about a personal affirmation that yes, everything is chemically determined instead of a website reference. What, you don’t like to admit it personally that everything you do is chemically determined? Talk about arrogance, you are a group of particles determined to respond exactly as you did and then you stand back and smile as if YOU intentionally did something beneficial. So stupid. But I suppose it is true that determinism is just a side issue compared to the fact that science hasn’t provided what evolution requires. So who will you call me now? What ad hominem will you dream up? It doesn’t matter. SCIENCE HASN’T PROVIDED WHAT EVOLUTION REQUIRES. And that is the reality that you continually suppress.

  138. Ivy Mike says:

    Johnny, just go away. You’re beyond pathetic now, and into just plain sad.

    You’re a complete disgrace.

    Admin, I recommend locking this thread…it, like all the evolution-related posts here, seems to be a gathering place for Johnny Mac and his many personas and toadies to play and flame-bait.

  139. zygosporangia says:

    I agree with Ivy Mike.

  140. Wolfhound says:

    Jeez, McD, give the crapfest a rest. We’ve heard this wankery before. Nobody’ buying and it doesn’t lend support to the existence of your imaginary friend anyway. Do shove off now.

  141. ABO says:

    zygosporangia

    To answer a few of your concerns, first of all, you can’t use quotes, that’s quote mining. And my location is planet earth, Yoda is not normally consulted here for advice.

    If you don’t know what junk science is, look it up or just read the article which started this run of intellectual revelation. .

    And the legislation of science has already been taken by these guys
    http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/primate/new/Grundmann/bonobo.html
    l
    You have given much more credibility to the Bible than I had expected. Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

  142. Wolfhound says:

    Seriously, ABO, the Bible is a bunch of horsepucky. Regurgitating choice bits of its copious volumes of ‘tard at us serves no purpose but to reinforce the fact that ID is nothing but theology. End of story.

    Once again I posit that to anti-intellectual godbotherers such as ABO, anything that contradicts the Bible (that is, pretty much ALL of science) is “junk science”.

    And just so’s ya’ knows, quoting folks isn’t a quote mine unless you leave out choice bits which eliminate the context of the quote. Such as the reality-denyer’s favorite Darwin quote. Quoting Thomas Jefferson and the like wherein they call Christianity a pile of crap (paraphrasing here) isn’t quotemining.

  143. Brandon Haught says:

    “Admin, I recommend locking this thread”

    Agreed and done.

Comments are closed.