[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Doulos Iesou]

This thread is for creationists to propose their summation of the Theory of Evolution, and these responses will be open to correction and clarification.

 

[lordkalvan]

This thread is for creationists to propose their summation of the Theory of Evolution, and these responses will be open to correction and clarification.

Nice try, but I have no expectation of a meaningful dialogue.

 

[Rick W]

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I will be back on Sunday later in the day, going out of town with the wife. I will respond to whatever is posted here around then or Monday.

 

[twinc]

This thread is for creationists to propose their summation of the Theory of Evolution, and these responses will be open to correction and clarification.

Which one ? - twinc

 

[Gary]

This thread is for creationists to propose their summation of the Theory of Evolution, and these responses will be open to correction and clarification.

.........................................................................................................

The video picks up after a minute or so. Check it out.

.

 

[Barbarian]

As expected no dialogue, but one "go see this creationist video." Pretty much like trying to learn about capitalism by watching "re-education" films from North Korea.

If you don't understand the video well enough to present the ideas here, what makes you think it's right? The thread nicely shows that people who don't like science, don't know much about it.

 

[Gary]

As expected no dialogue, but one "go see this creationist video." Pretty much like trying to learn about capitalism by watching "re-education" films from North Korea.

If you don't understand the video well enough to present the ideas here, what makes you think it's right? The thread nicely shows that people who don't like science, don't know much about it.

If I didn't understand the video, I wouldn't have posted it.

And one doesn't need to be an Einstein to understand that you can't get something from nothing.

Now.....
.

 

[Milk-Drops]

.........................................................................................................

The video picks up after a minute or so. Check it out.

.

I'm watching the video and noticed that Dr Bergmen's degrees aren't actually mentioned, but we are assured that his degrees are relevant. I looked him up and found that his studies are actually centered around psychology, medicine, and human physiology. This means that Dr. Bergmen is a medical doctor. His interests involve fossils, but they are by no means his expertese.

His medical work is respected because he can demonstrate easily his finding and has been accepted into the American Science association.

However its quite clear in the video that his specialty is not homology or phylogeny due to several very bad comparisons. A lot of the fossils he is presenting in the videos are based on looks alone and ignores some very basic taxonomy. He keeps using the terms identical, but even I can see some major differences from just my computer screen. Not to mention he isn't mentioning size and mass. He is basically cherry picking his evidence. The Current theory of evolution studies and large body of evidence, but Bergmen is leaving out a lot of information. For instance he is making the claim that most animals haven't changed that much, but he doesn't mention that specific groups of animals aren't found in rock layers dating back so far. There are structures that emerged at specific points. There are differences in the genetics of Plants and animals that can explain why a fern wouldn't change much over a few million years while mammals vastly change.

The video highlights to me that he is a man that has some expertise in some areas, but not enough in taxonomy to be trusted in explaining evolutionary theory.

Plus if your website tries to extort money from me when I visit it and i'm immediately being told about evil evolutionists, I might think you are a tad bit politically motivated to say what you are saying and get certain facts wrong.

 

[Rick W]

Oh I don't know. A Hollywood star says something about a topic he/she holds no profession credentials for and it's believed as absolute truth.


Anyway,
If I'm told what I say will be "open to correction and clarification." there's little to no motivation to say anything. Right off it's assumed what I'll say is wrong. So why say it?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Oh I don't know. A Hollywood star says something about a topic he/she holds no profession credentials for and it's believed as absolute truth.

Where is this going on? I don't see any of that in here.

Anyway,
If I'm told what I say will be "open to correction and clarification." there's little to no motivation to say anything. Right off it's assumed what I'll say is wrong. So why say it?

I don't think anyone is assuming what you are saying will be wrong, but if its a field you aren't specialized in, its understandable if you don't know everything and might hold concepts that are not completely correct. Maybe this thread was started as a learning experience. I can understand a desire to create such a thread, considering we are in the science section and maybe people want to talk and discuss science here.

 

[Gary]

Common sense doesn't require a degree.

For instance, in the chart below, anyone can see that in order to step up in the evolutionary chain, a transformation must take place. Not just one or two physical changes, but thousands. A monkey didn't just wake up one day and he was something different. No, evolution is a slow gradual change over thousands of years. Billions of fossils have been unearthed and not one transitional link is among them.

Where's the transitional evidence?

 

[Gary]

Anyway,
If I'm told what I say will be "open to correction and clarification." there's little to no motivation to say anything. Right off it's assumed what I'll say is wrong. So why say it?

I noticed that too.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Common sense doesn't require a degree.

Common sense is just anecdotal experience and accepted general knowledge, but in itself isn't fully reliable. A lot of stuff called common sense is based on factoids that are generally accepted. However general acceptance can be wrong if it can be demonstrated to be so. Which is usually done by people who specialize in specific fields. So it wouldn't be common knowledge/sense.

For instance, in the chart below, anyone can see that in order to step up in the evolutionary chain, a transformation must take place. Not just one or two physical changes, but thousands. A monkey didn't just wake up one day and he was something different. No, evolution is a slow gradual change over thousands of years. Billions of fossils have been unearthed and not one transitional link is among them.

Where's the transitional evidence?

The problem is that science is not common sense. The problem is that Biology by itself is a very vast field of study. It takes years to fully understand it. The basic concept of the theory of evolution is that organisms adapt and change to their surrounding. However to fully explain it I would have to write a book to clear up just the basics.

The theory of evolution covers fields such as taxonomy, ecology, population mechanics, genetics, Medicine, etc. The reason why its accepted by the grand majority of biologists is because it correlates these fields. Basicly, it fits.

Now, I can understand when someone looks at the chart you are providing and asks where are the transitions? I can start by naming a few groups, naming doctors, naming scientist, naming papers, naming organisms, etc. The reason why I would do this is because there is no simple answer, a lot of it takes a lot of study to understand. I spent years studying art, biology, psychology, and computers. I can talk basics about these fields because I spent a lot of time learning, yet I'm only specialized in a few fields that I can specifically talk about so I will link you to those who know more.

Its very labor intensive to understand this stuff.

 

[Drew]

Common sense is just anecdotal experience and accepted general knowledge, but in itself isn't fully reliable....

I agree. Quantum theory defies common sense. General relatively defies common sense. Yet both are massively supported by the evidence.

And evolutionary theory defies common sense as well, at least in certain respects. One such respect is that of the long time scales involved that are nigh unto impossible to grasp.

 

[Rick W]

Where is this going on? I don't see any of that in here.

I don't think anyone is assuming what you are saying will be wrong, but if its a field you aren't specialized in, its understandable if you don't know everything and might hold concepts that are not completely correct. Maybe this thread was started as a learning experience. I can understand a desire to create such a thread, considering we are in the science section and maybe people want to talk and discuss science here.

I've been here a very long time as this site goes, read multitudes of posts from both sides.
I used to be a staunch evolutionist. A Theistic Evolutionist, a TE when I finally surrendered to Christ. For several years afterward I too argued heatedly against the preposterous idea of creationism. I loved science, still do. Had 5 sciences in my senior year of HS that I did very well in because of that interest. And I'm still as interested as ever.
As the years went by I abandoned theistic evolution and became a creationist. That didn't happen overnight. Then I found this site in 2004 I think and been here ever since.

"but if its a field you aren't specialized in, its understandable if you don't know everything and might hold concepts that are not completely correct."

You have no idea how that comes across.
But getting through the first impressions of that statement I can say my time here has afforded me the opportunity of being exposed to more experts specializing in their field, reading their conclusions, their opinions and their beliefs more than a large part of the populace. And I'm still a Creationist believing and teaching those claimed "concepts that are not completely correct."

 

[AirDancer]

Consider, please, how long it took to discover atoms, then consider how long it took to find the tiny hard nucleus of protons and neutrons, encircled by empty shells that hold a few orbiting electrons. Zooming in further, there are quarks, neutrinos, bosons, etc. And we're still learning about dark energy and quantum entanglements, to name just 2 of the more 'recent' explorations.

The sheer genius of how mankind & the universe are composed, I have no doubt that our Lord God was the mastermind behind it all. He did everything in His time, in accordance to His Will.

DNA is showing us how related we are to everything in life. Scientists have toiled over the long decades to gain for us more understanding of our relationship with the world - and universe - around us. Some may say their efforts disprove the reality that our Lord God created everything. My opinion is their efforts continue to prove our Lord God created everything, in His time, and according to His Will. His is the master plan!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bio...com%2Fphylogeny_slideshows_refer.html;960;951

 

[Milk-Drops]

I've been here a very long time as this site goes, read multitudes of posts from both sides.
I used to be a staunch evolutionist. A Theistic Evolutionist, a TE when I finally surrendered to Christ. For several years afterward I too argued heatedly against the preposterous idea of creationism. I loved science, still do. Had 5 sciences in my senior year of HS that I did very well in because of that interest. And I'm still as interested as ever.
As the years went by I abandoned theistic evolution and became a creationist. That didn't happen overnight. Then I found this site in 2004 I think and been here ever since.

So, you are interested but don't want to discuss it? So you belittle us who try? Why? If that isn't the case, then what exactly are you trying to get out of this?

"but if its a field you aren't specialized in, its understandable if you don't know everything and might hold concepts that are not completely correct."

You have no idea how that comes across.

I'm growing into a person who is ceasing to care how I come across because people will take whatever I say however they want. I can't control that. I do my best to be empathetic, but if its just going to get scoffed at, then I'll speak my mind. Considering I've had plenty of people outright try to offend others here, I really don't put to much effort into being a back patter.

But getting through the first impressions of that statement I can say my time here has afforded me the opportunity of being exposed to more experts specializing in their field, reading their conclusions, their opinions and their beliefs more than a large part of the populace. And I'm still a Creationist believing and teaching those claimed "concepts that are not completely correct."

So do you actually want to share any of this, or just scoff to yourself for your own sake and arogance?

 

[Gary]

Common sense is just anecdotal experience and accepted general knowledge, but in itself isn't fully reliable. A lot of stuff called common sense is based on factoids that are generally accepted. However general acceptance can be wrong if it can be demonstrated to be so. Which is usually done by people who specialize in specific fields. So it wouldn't be common knowledge/sense.

The problem is that science is not common sense. The problem is that Biology by itself is a very vast field of study. It takes years to fully understand it. The basic concept of the theory of evolution is that organisms adapt and change to their surrounding. However to fully explain it I would have to write a book to clear up just the basics.

The theory of evolution covers fields such as taxonomy, ecology, population mechanics, genetics, Medicine, etc. The reason why its accepted by the grand majority of biologists is because it correlates these fields. Basicly, it fits.

Now, I can understand when someone looks at the chart you are providing and asks where are the transitions? I can start by naming a few groups, naming doctors, naming scientist, naming papers, naming organisms, etc. The reason why I would do this is because there is no simple answer, a lot of it takes a lot of study to understand. I spent years studying art, biology, psychology, and computers. I can talk basics about these fields because I spent a lot of time learning, yet I'm only specialized in a few fields that I can specifically talk about so I will link you to those who know more.

Its very labor intensive to understand this stuff.

I agree. Quantum theory defies common sense. General relatively defies common sense. Yet both are massively supported by the evidence.

And evolutionary theory defies common sense as well, at least in certain respects. One such respect is that of the long time scales involved that are nigh unto impossible to grasp.

I would like to see some transitional fossils for the time period between Homo Erectus and modern man. Thousands and thousands of changes took place between those two time periods. Surely there must be something in the fossil record.
.

 

[jasonc]

so most assume that about mechanics. they will ask a mechanic that simply does electrical work about an engine issue. he may have the idea of an engine but he isn't the person to work on that. then you have the 8 sub categories of ase's for gas engines, 10 for diesel and I think some for natural gas. they do cross over but still there are specializations.

I know from my time in this that just because we have an ase doesn't mean we are right.

an ignorant statement a mechanic who can actually fix your car often says but is still right to recommend but for the wrong reason

if I replace just one wheel cylinder or caliper the brake pressure will increase and the old part will fail

if there is play in the front end the power steering pump will take up the slack

I have heard this by a few, that is flat out wrong. a pump generates pressure it cant align linkage that is bent, broken or missing.

I mention this as well some do have aptitude and use you tube and simply learn from that to repair the problem if simple enough. if we are going to go there then if we aren't in that field to know it fully then when an expert that is tell us, we should just shut up and agree.

voting is one fine example where I could go with this and I shall.
should we then just trust the politicians if we don't know foreign policy?
are ignorant of economics?
are ignorant of the problems that really do face goverments , ie how it works in managing things, such as parks, utilities and so forth.

research does wonders but one can learn by reading up. yes its limited but if we are all honest we do pick a field and read up on it on the internet and think we know it.