Evolution is real. Its a real thing that really does happen and did happen. Gah!

[Spearmaster]

Was that a question or just an attempt to answer your own question by trying to discredit and insult me for others reading this post?

I will sum it up nice and simple, Evolution is fact, many evolutionary theories are proven fact but that does not mean that every evolutionary theory should be thought of as fact without demanding more evidence, yes evolutionary theories are doing quite well but it has some problems some people feel it has just ignored in a rush for a simplified answer. I'm not a creationist and I cant freely accept evolution as it is without answering more questions.

We know we are looking at something, but without the whole picture can we be sure exactly what we are looking at? If everyone just blindly accepted scientific consensus and never demanded better proof we would have never found out the earth was round. I try to keep and open mind, not a narrow one, even with a modern theory like evolution.

So basically evolution is doing good but we need to fight the whole war before declaring total victory.

People in this forum were arguing an all or nothing stance on both sides leaving no room for change or possibility so I played devils advocate to both sides and the evolutionist side seemed to jump on me so I went with it.

Nah, I just toss slightly insulting phrases in as an old habit. Pay no heed

You... didn't really answer my first question. You just restated yourself. You didn't explain what the problems are or what sub-theories you are talking about or why, if you agree that some theories are fact, how evolutionary theory (I assume as a whole), something that explains the lesser theories that you called facts, is not accepted.
Evolution, the theory of explaining diversity of life because of traits based by generations, natural selection influence, sexual selection influence and all that, what exactly are you rejecting on it? Is it the explanation, is it mechanisms, is it claims derived from either or is it functional application of it? Because all of those are empirically tested and hold out pretty well.

I... ok..? I think at this point it isn't a matter of victory, but of evidence and functionality. Evolution produces a model we can use to predict and an explanation of how that works. It is the only theory that actually works concerning diversity of life. Seems kinda irrationally stonewalling it at this point to meet a criteria that is ill defined at the moment and that doesn't seem to be needed to be met for other theories... or are you like this with all of them? Do you present the same protest towards gravitational theory as a whole, because of issues with the theory on a quantum level?

Actually, people were arguing mostly against creationism. This isn't even an "all or nothing", creationism is flat out wrong, regardless of evolution's stance. No dichotomy here about one being wrong the other right by default. Now, add on evolution as the current explanation for diversity of life and, well, there is no alternative. Scientifically, it is the only explanation that works, has held up and is available. Creationism is not science, has been disproven, is not internally consistent and is just garbage. I can understand supporting upholding aspects concerning intellectual integrity when presenting an argument, but there is a point where it is no longer beneficial. This comes off as that sort of point. Heavily so. we have the working model theory (evolution), we have crackpot religious garbage (creationism), and at the moment, that is pretty much it. If there is a better explanation out there, yeah sure, it would compete with evolution , but there isn't. And even if there was, chances are it would be worked into the theory, or fused together, since as you admitted, a number of sub-theories about evolution are already proven facts.

Also, since I liked this and is based off a comment made earlier.
http://macromeme.com/dog/science-vs-creationism-logic.html

Mainly it is a matter of the missing link evidence, I am not protesting or stonewalling the theory, I'm just stating that at this time even though it is the only valid theory, some people, myself included, are just waiting to see what new evidence we uncover before we completely commit to a human evolutionary model, we know its changing all the time, and will change again with new evidence. I guess my burden of proof is higher than most peoples but I'm not asking for anything irrational like all the metaphysical stuff you are inferring, I'm not trying do disprove gravity I am merely waiting for better evidence. Which is good because it keeps the search going.
Telling me that because I think there are parts of the evolution of man from ape that need better evidence before being accepted as fact by everyone is the same as not believing in gravity is just a really lame straw man argument that insults people's intelligence when you use it and should not be needed if the human evolutionary model is so solid so please stop.

"And even if there was, chances are it would be worked into the theory, or fused together, since as you admitted, a number of sub-theories about evolution are already proven facts."

Exactly what I'm waiting to see happen and the reason I am waiting for more solid evidence.

Also just because the only competing theory is a "crackpot religious" one which evolution wipes out doesn't automatically make all competing theories absolute fact, it just makes them the best we have right now and also gives it an even higher burden of proof not a lesser one. Which is what gave us evolution as a theory in the first place, if we stop asking for more and better explanations we have failed science.
The point of evolutionary studies was to answer questions not to prove creationism wrong right? Because if the point was just to disprove creationism and declare victory and thus say its 100% fact would be proof that there was an agenda other than finding the truth.
I just get tired of seeing the same "We are less wrong so that means we are 100% infallible" non sequitur argument for evolution, it makes it seem that evolution theory exist in spite of creationism and not as a search for the truth.

Does that give you a better answer?

 

[Spearmaster]

Finally, you got it. Was that so hard? That's all I really wanted was an acknowledgment that with evolution everything is not known and its not 100% but its the best we got. Therefor the argument between the 0% evolution people and 100% absolute fact people has no place in science because they are both wrong. Which was the point of my original post.

Just because evolution is something like 90% instead of 100%, doesn't mean that creationism isn't 0%.

Possibly, then show me the other 10% as proof.

Edit: Also which version of creationism?

 

[runic knight]

Mainly it is a matter of the missing link evidence, I am not protesting or stonewalling the theory, I'm just stating that at this time even though it is the only valid theory, some people, myself included, are just waiting to see what new evidence we uncover before we completely commit to a human evolutionary model, we know its changing all the time, and will change again with new evidence. I guess my burden of proof is higher than most peoples but I'm not asking for anything irrational like all the metaphysical stuff you are inferring, I'm not trying do disprove gravity I am merely waiting for better evidence. Which is good because it keeps the search going.

I am not asking you to abandon any new information, but this IS pretty much the same thing as saying you reject gravitational theory because of quantum issues. Actually, this is worse, as it is saying you reject evolution because it isn't 100% done yet, where as at least gravitation theory has issues with it to justify rejection on top of not being done (as no theory is by your definition.). Evolutionary theory in general doesn't have such gaping issues. Specifics, such as human evolutionary line, is pretty solid too. Solid enough to be a functional model, which is saying that the theory is a working explanation of reality because it can be used to predict.

Since you specify human evolution, alright, what about that is wrong? What has not been explained well enough or is contrary to the theory?

Telling me that because I think there are parts of the evolution of man from ape that need better evidence before being accepted as fact by everyone is the same as not believing in gravity is just a really lame straw man argument that insults people's intelligence when you use it and should not be needed if the human evolutionary model is so solid so please stop.

, it is not a straw man, it is drawing a parallel between the two theories to show a double standard in your requirements. Why do you not hold gravity, a theory that has known gaps in it's understanding, to the same standard? Do you disbelieve gravitational theory or are you making a special plea about evolution itself. This is the point I was making, that you are committing a fallacy in being inconsistent. As for being accepted, that has NO merit in the argument. It doesn't matter who accepts the damn theory, merely that it works. People too wrapped up in religious ideals not accepting it is not a mark against the theory. Also, humans are primates and are monkeys. There is a vid posted a few times here that explains it well.

Exactly what I'm waiting to see happen and the reason I am waiting for more solid evidence.

so you admit what we have is right, merely want it added into some discovery we have not and may never make before committing? This seems very close to not wanting to call someone guilty until you find eye witnesses even after video footage, prints, dna, written confession, means, motive and was already tried and found guilty by the court system. Or the obama birther nonsense.

Also just because the only competing theory is a "crackpot religious" one which evolution wipes out doesn't automatically make all competing theories absolute fact, it just makes them the best we have right now and also gives it an even higher burden of proof not a lesser one. Which is what gave us evolution as a theory in the first place, if we stop asking for more and better explanations we have failed science.
The point of evolutionary studies was to answer questions not to prove creationism wrong right? Because if the point was just to disprove creationism and declare victory and thus say its 100% fact would be proof that there was an agenda other than finding the truth.
I just get tired of seeing the same "We are less wrong so that means we are 100% infallible" non sequitur argument for evolution, it makes it seem that evolution theory exist in spite of creationism and not as a search for the truth.

Does that give you a better answer?

That attitude mostly comes from the notion there is a fight between the two. There has not been in a long time. So that is where the idea of a victory comes from. Evolution already beat out creationism years and years ago. So it is kinda annoying when we still have people trying to pander off creationist crap that has been debunked before as though it is anything more then trying to resurrect a failed and defeated idea to compete with the current only functional explanation. Creationism lost. It wont come back from that grave.
Or some may be merely going on the idea that science itself won against creationism. The problem is not that "we are less wrong", it is "we are right" and they are, even if you want to be as selective as you can about it and say it is only to the extent that it is a functional predictable model. Sorry, but you can say you are right when you make the case as "this will explain what is going on and be able to predict discoveries and guide research in the field", and it actually does. They were right about that claim, and while there is room for new information, it does not change the fact that it still functions and were correct in it's predictive and functional capacity. In that way, it IS right. Creationism has nothing like that, so it is essentially saying to creationists "we are right because this actually works, it is functional and your crap ideology doesn't do shit to advance human understanding." And that I can stand behind I think.

I find it hard to express exactly the idea I mean here, and it seems like I keep circling it without getting the right words.
If you make the claim "I can predict what will happen", and you do, you can say you were right. If you can do it consistently, you can continue to say you are right about it. Evolution does this...

Also, few people say evolution is infallible, merely unassailable by creationist. The notion here is not that evolution is now perfect and will never change, merely that creationist will never be the reason it does. A dead concept disproven so long ago will not suddenly stop being contradictory to reality to thge point evolution needs to rework itself. It is like using an expired version of the atomic model to try and argue against current molecular science...

 

[Frission]

I don't believe in evolution.

I mean how would a chicken evolve to have so much meat and lay eggs that just so happen to be perfect for cooking a large variety of foods?

Why does a sheep have wool instead of regular fur? Why is wool such a perfect insulator for humans?

Why do humans have no fur? Surely having fur would be much more useful than just skin and will also help us stay warm?

If we evolved from monkeys then why don't we have an awesome tail for swinging around the trees? Humans were around LONG before anything was constructed so why would we not have tails still (if it takes millions of years to evolve).

Why aren't crocodiles evolved? Weren't they around since the dinosaurs? Also, where are the dinosaurs?! Why would things evolve to be weaker and smaller (such as sharks like the megalodon...why is it extinct if it was the king of the ocean?)

I dunno, there's probably answers to these questions but I still find evolution hard to believe. It's a good theory and makes sense from a scientific perspective but sometimes there are things in life that just can't be explained.

Well there are several answers to your questions. Humans aren't directly evolved from monkeys. They're just our "cousins". Some things become "weaker" because there's not enough oxygen. The dinasaurs went extinct. Not enough oxygen and food for such huge creatures. We don't have the gigantic bugs from the era of the dinosaurs because there's not as much oxygen as there used to be. That's one theory anyway.

On humans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

It's Wikipedia, but I can't send my book over the internet so this will have to do. Humans also have a vestigial tail. It's called the coccyx.

On the chicken, I have no idea. The same reason there are things like turkeys and there used to be dodos. Alot of evolution comes from mutations after all. It's not necessarily positive. Chickens were first domesticated from the wild fowl (gallus gallus), which still exists in southeast Asia. http://archaeology.about.com/od/domestications/qt/chicken.htm

I understand that some people wouldn't know that much on this subject. I barely understand complex physics.

If you don't know please just say you don't know, not that you don't believe in it. Most of the people who support creationism seem to do it mainly from ignorance or from lack of understanding.
No offense.

 

[Spearmaster]

Finally, you got it. Was that so hard? That's all I really wanted was an acknowledgment that with evolution everything is not known and its not 100% but its the best we got. Therefor the argument between the 0% evolution people and 100% absolute fact people has no place in science because they are both wrong. Which was the point of my original post.

Just because evolution is something like 90% instead of 100%, doesn't mean that creationism isn't 0%.

Possibly, then show me the other 10% as proof.

Edit: Also which version of creationism?

There's room to prove that our current model of evolution is missing something, this extra X% or what-have-you. Maybe we'll find something that turns our current understanding of Evolution on its head. But there are facts about evolution that we absolutely know, and they all counter creationism below theistic evolution.

Than we agree, I never argued in favor of creationism just that evolution is not 100% yet.

 

[Spearmaster]

Mainly it is a matter of the missing link evidence, I am not protesting or stonewalling the theory, I'm just stating that at this time even though it is the only valid theory, some people, myself included, are just waiting to see what new evidence we uncover before we completely commit to a human evolutionary model, we know its changing all the time, and will change again with new evidence. I guess my burden of proof is higher than most peoples but I'm not asking for anything irrational like all the metaphysical stuff you are inferring, I'm not trying do disprove gravity I am merely waiting for better evidence. Which is good because it keeps the search going.

I am not asking you to abandon any new information, but this IS pretty much the same thing as saying you reject gravitational theory because of quantum issues. Actually, this is worse, as it is saying you reject evolution because it isn't 100% done yet, where as at least gravitation theory has issues with it to justify rejection on top of not being done (as no theory is by your definition.). Evolutionary theory in general doesn't have such gaping issues. Specifics, such as human evolutionary line, is pretty solid too. Solid enough to be a functional model, which is saying that the theory is a working explanation of reality because it can be used to predict.

Since you specify human evolution, alright, what about that is wrong? What has not been explained well enough or is contrary to the theory?

Telling me that because I think there are parts of the evolution of man from ape that need better evidence before being accepted as fact by everyone is the same as not believing in gravity is just a really lame straw man argument that insults people's intelligence when you use it and should not be needed if the human evolutionary model is so solid so please stop.

, it is not a straw man, it is drawing a parallel between the two theories to show a double standard in your requirements. Why do you not hold gravity, a theory that has known gaps in it's understanding, to the same standard? Do you disbelieve gravitational theory or are you making a special plea about evolution itself. This is the point I was making, that you are committing a fallacy in being inconsistent. As for being accepted, that has NO merit in the argument. It doesn't matter who accepts the damn theory, merely that it works. People too wrapped up in religious ideals not accepting it is not a mark against the theory. Also, humans are primates and are monkeys. There is a vid posted a few times here that explains it well.

Exactly what I'm waiting to see happen and the reason I am waiting for more solid evidence.

so you admit what we have is right, merely want it added into some discovery we have not and may never make before committing? This seems very close to not wanting to call someone guilty until you find eye witnesses even after video footage, prints, dna, written confession, means, motive and was already tried and found guilty by the court system. Or the obama birther nonsense.

Also just because the only competing theory is a "crackpot religious" one which evolution wipes out doesn't automatically make all competing theories absolute fact, it just makes them the best we have right now and also gives it an even higher burden of proof not a lesser one. Which is what gave us evolution as a theory in the first place, if we stop asking for more and better explanations we have failed science.
The point of evolutionary studies was to answer questions not to prove creationism wrong right? Because if the point was just to disprove creationism and declare victory and thus say its 100% fact would be proof that there was an agenda other than finding the truth.
I just get tired of seeing the same "We are less wrong so that means we are 100% infallible" non sequitur argument for evolution, it makes it seem that evolution theory exist in spite of creationism and not as a search for the truth.

Does that give you a better answer?

That attitude mostly comes from the notion there is a fight between the two. There has not been in a long time. So that is where the idea of a victory comes from. Evolution already beat out creationism years and years ago. So it is kinda annoying when we still have people trying to pander off creationist crap that has been debunked before as though it is anything more then trying to resurrect a failed and defeated idea to compete with the current only functional explanation. Creationism lost. It wont come back from that grave.
Or some may be merely going on the idea that science itself won against creationism. The problem is not that "we are less wrong", it is "we are right" and they are, even if you want to be as selective as you can about it and say it is only to the extent that it is a functional predictable model. Sorry, but you can say you are right when you make the case as "this will explain what is going on and be able to predict discoveries and guide research in the field", and it actually does. They were right about that claim, and while there is room for new information, it does not change the fact that it still functions and were correct in it's predictive and functional capacity. In that way, it IS right. Creationism has nothing like that, so it is essentially saying to creationists "we are right because this actually works, it is functional and your crap ideology doesn't do shit to advance human understanding." And that I can stand behind I think.

I find it hard to express exactly the idea I mean here, and it seems like I keep circling it without getting the right words.
If you make the claim "I can predict what will happen", and you do, you can say you were right. If you can do it consistently, you can continue to say you are right about it. Evolution does this...

Also, few people say evolution is infallible, merely unassailable by creationist. The notion here is not that evolution is now perfect and will never change, merely that creationist will never be the reason it does. A dead concept disproven so long ago will not suddenly stop being contradictory to reality to thge point evolution needs to rework itself. It is like using an expired version of the atomic model to try and argue against current molecular science...

The problem with comparing what I am saying to gravity is that I have personal empirical evidence that gravity exist, gravity exist, I live in it every day, Saying evolution is as predictable as gravity is nonsense just because of the complexity of evolution, if we discover something different about gravity it will still function the same way it always has, if we find changes in evolution theory it has the capacity to rewrite the whole theory.

Yes gravity has gaps in HOW it works, some parts of evolution have gaps in if it even exist as described in the current model, there is a huge difference.

"so you admit what we have is right, merely want it added into some discovery we have not and may never make before committing? This seems very close to not wanting to call someone guilty until you find eye witnesses even after video footage, prints, dna, written confession, means, motive and was already tried and found guilty by the court system. Or the obama birther nonsense."

So because I would like see a more solid evolutionary model that makes me wrong??? Also please stay on topic, court cases and Obama birthers have nothing to do with anything im saying, it might seem like another straw man.

"I find it hard to express exactly the idea I mean here, and it seems like I keep circling it without getting the right words.
If you make the claim "I can predict what will happen", and you do, you can say you were right. If you can do it consistently, you can continue to say you are right about it. Evolution does this..."

Can you predict what will happen in human evolution 100%, sure you can claim it but without proof, which will come in time through watching evolution unfold in front of our eyes, you cant claim prediction, it works on bacteria though so its a start.
Predicting what you will find in the dirt is claiming you can predict what has already happened by having already found other similar samples in the dirt so is it really prediction of evolution or paleontology? If prediction was sound we would know not only 100% evolution existed as the current model indicates but also be able to explain WHY evolution occurred at every step on the macro level which we cant as far as I know.

"Also, few people say evolution is infallible, merely unassailable by creationist. The notion here is not that evolution is now perfect and will never change, merely that creationist will never be the reason it does. A dead concept disproven so long ago will not suddenly stop being contradictory to reality to thge point evolution needs to rework itself. It is like using an expired version of the atomic model to try and argue against current molecular science..."

Yes quite true, then why does the fact that I don't completely agree with 100% of evolution being perfect gives everyone a reason for bringing it up then? I never brought up creationism as an alternate truth to be argued for just that because the current evolutionary model is the only scientific theory does not make it 100% perfect. Why cant people accept how I feel about it? I never even asked them to agree. Think for yourself, question authority.

As a side note if there is no fight between evolutionist and creationist why was this thread started? Troll?

 

[runic knight]

The problem with comparing what I am saying to gravity is that I have personal empirical evidence that gravity exist, gravity exist, I live in it every day, Saying evolution is as predictable as gravity is nonsense just because of the complexity of evolution, if we discover something different about gravity it will still function the same way it always has, if we find changes in evolution theory it has the capacity to rewrite the whole theory.

Yes gravity has gaps in HOW it works, some parts of evolution have gaps in if it even exist as described in the current model, there is a huge difference.

"so you admit what we have is right, merely want it added into some discovery we have not and may never make before committing? This seems very close to not wanting to call someone guilty until you find eye witnesses even after video footage, prints, dna, written confession, means, motive and was already tried and found guilty by the court system. Or the obama birther nonsense."

So because I would like see a more solid evolutionary model that makes me wrong??? Also please stay on topic, court cases and Obama birthers have nothing to do with anything im saying, it might seem like another straw man.

"I find it hard to express exactly the idea I mean here, and it seems like I keep circling it without getting the right words.
If you make the claim "I can predict what will happen", and you do, you can say you were right. If you can do it consistently, you can continue to say you are right about it. Evolution does this..."

Can you predict what will happen in human evolution 100%, sure you can claim it but without proof, which will come in time through watching evolution unfold in front of our eyes, you cant claim prediction, it works on bacteria though so its a start.
Predicting what you will find in the dirt is claiming you can predict what has already happened by having already found other similar samples in the dirt so is it really prediction of evolution or paleontology? If prediction was sound we would know not only 100% evolution existed as the current model indicates but also be able to explain WHY evolution occurred at every step on the macro level which we cant as far as I know.

"Also, few people say evolution is infallible, merely unassailable by creationist. The notion here is not that evolution is now perfect and will never change, merely that creationist will never be the reason it does. A dead concept disproven so long ago will not suddenly stop being contradictory to reality to thge point evolution needs to rework itself. It is like using an expired version of the atomic model to try and argue against current molecular science..."

Yes quite true, then why does the fact that I don't completely agree with 100% of evolution being perfect gives everyone a reason for bringing it up then? I never brought up creationism as an alternate truth to be argued for just that because the current evolutionary model is the only scientific theory does not make it 100% perfect. Why cant people accept how I feel about it? I never even asked them to agree. Think for yourself, question authority.

As a side note if there is no fight between evolutionist and creationist why was this thread started? Troll?

Personal empirical evidence? So, this is more about what you experience and observe then? The predictability of evolution is not as hard to see. First there is the past lines of living organisms, where we can look through the fossil records and predict what sort of traits what fossils in what era of rock will be found. This has been done successfully several times. Hell, some cases of predicting entire new species that would be discovered in certain sections of time have been been done right based on what is known about the theory. In terms of predictability about the path of evolution, I will admit it is harder to apply, but not impossible. Identifying traits that help survivability, mating, or reduces environmental stresses can be used to predict what species will survive better or worse then others.

As for gravity, you pretty much define the point I made before. If we find something new, it will still have to incorporate everything that we already have in place that works. You agreed with the notion when I mentioned fusing the new information in with the theory, yet reject it here? If we discover something different about the theory (such as a new guiding force besides sexual selection, natural selection and the like), we will still have to work in the observable facts that species accumulate traits and populations can change into new species (you know, the fundamental aspects of what evolution is). New data would have to be very extreme to overwrite that sort of observable fact, and in parallel, such an extreme addition to information would also be enough to force gravity, atomic or any other theory to be completely rewritten as well. Just because you see the effects of gravity in everyday life does not mean it is given different rules for validation. Your own personal incredulity is not a good measure nor complaint.

Since you mention it though, would you provide some examples? you keep giving these vague complaints yet no legitimate examples of them. What gaps are you talking about in the theory? Are you talking about not yet discovered fossils of every branch along the evolutionary line? Because that is not a gap in the theory, that is one in the record. The theory looks to the record for how to arrange the pieces, but the theory itself explains why they are arranged the way they are in reality. An example of not knowing where apes and monkeys broke apart exactly doesn't dismiss the rest of the evidence showing that at one point they did. It really comes off as that being the case you are trying to make here though.

It is wrong to keep demanding a stronger evolutionary model before accepting it when you can not define your complaints, nor explain the flaws you keep referring to. Chances are they have been addressed and it just seems like a weak attempt to denounce it without justification beyond personal incredulity. NO theory will be perfect, and to try to hold evolution alone to this standard in spite of common sense, the functionality of the theory itself, the basis of it in agriculture, medicine and biology itself... it looks like a denial for the sake of denial, being justified with a meter-stick you only apply to evolution and that requires an impossible to meet standard. This is why I mentioned birthers, as it is the same behavior of denying the answer and demanding more proof long past the point reason. And much like the birthers, it suggests a personal argument against it rather then a scientific one.

You can't predict what will happen 100% of the time (this being under any and all circumstances) with any theory. This is why gravitational theory had to change and currently has holes, yet you don't deny that. This is why atomic theory has changed over the years and is still likely to as we go to smaller particles, yet you don't demand it prove itself 100%. I made the claim evolution gave a theory that could be used to predict, and has been used to predict successfully. Prediction of new species in the geological record. Prediction of species survivability and growth rates. These are solid, observable results you can get from the theory, and have been gotten from it.

Again, you demand a special exception for evolution to be a perfect theory yet repeatedly ignore the flaws and pit falls of every other theory out there. No theory is perfect, none will reach that standard yet you apply it to evolution alone as though it affronts your ideological base. This is the problem I see.

As for why it is brought up, besides the thread itself littered with people bringing up those claims, and besides your argument at times sounding like the same sort as theirs, it is the only notion trying to compete. It is not a theory, it is not science and it has not a chance in hell, but it is the only thing out there throwing itself against the walls to fight with evolution. Not surprising when someone dismisses evolution, it is often because they support the stance of creationism. In fact, scientifically, there just isn't a debate about the validity of evolution as a theory. It is so well tested and so well done, that only details of the fossil record or clarification about what pressures affect it change, while the core has remained pretty consistent since it's inception.
The reason people come at you about it is because you are mirroring much of the term and tactic of creationist charlatans. Encouraging irrational questioning of authority solely relating to evolution? Sounds like the "Teach the controversy" political campaign for creationism to me. Claiming scientists have an agenda? Looks like a common plea for conspiracy used to ignore evidence of evolution. Maybe it is more how you present your argument and what points you are using that makes people think you are a creationist. Not always right to assume, but when you look like a duck, smell like a duck and sound like a duck, most people will call you a crocoduck...

There is lots of fighting. As said before, religious and fringe elements tend to resist change. There are people who still think the universe revolves around the earth after all. It is just that there is no new debate or rational fight between the two. Scientifically, this matter has been settled years ago. If you notice, you don't see biological scientists arguing creationism, you see preachers, politicians, laymen and various religious people. There is fighting because it messes with their ideology and they can't accept that it could be wrong, so of course the scientists must be conspiring against their religion.

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

I guess I just place a higher burden of proof on things then most others.

Saying that other theories have holes in them so its normal for every theory to have holes in them is fine, saying that I cant demand more evidence or even post question to a theory because of other theories having holes makes no sense.
If there is no point in questioning the current model what are all the scientist wasting their time for, oh that's right, they know for a fact that we don't know 100% and that is why they are always gathering more data and trying to find more evidence to either prove or disprove new data, which means even the scientist in the field are demanding more evidence to make it 100% and not accepting it as complete.

"Since you mention it though, would you provide some examples? you keep giving these vague complaints yet no legitimate examples of them. What gaps are you talking about in the theory?"

If we knew what we were looking for we wouldn't have to look for it would we?

"It is wrong to keep demanding a stronger evolutionary model before accepting it when you can not define your complaints, nor explain the flaws you keep referring to."

Why is it wrong?

"Again, you demand a special exception for evolution to be a perfect theory yet repeatedly ignore the flaws and pit falls of every other theory out there. No theory is perfect, none will reach that standard yet you apply it to evolution alone as though it affronts your ideological base. This is the problem I see."

I apply it to evolution alone? I would like a quote. Also gravity has been working the same the whole time Ive been siting here so I can accept that, I never said that I believed all current gravity theory.

Here is the thing, I am an existential realist so proving a theory and having me believe it are a completely different. When it comes to scientific theory im a glass is half empty person and the further into an issue I get the further down the rabbit hole I go, hell I could argue that I do not exist to myself and might win.

You are asking me for specific issued or problems, and I keep telling you there is a possibility that all things may not me known so im gonna stay on the fence.

I did not even want to have the arguments I am dealing with on here, my original post was meant to be a blanket statement to both sides to not discount possibility when making arguments. I worded it the way I did to be more palatable to everyone because this forum is public and not everyone studies the details of evolution theory, not even I to the extent of some others, I thought creationist would jump on me, not evolutionist. It is possible that some pieces of evolution may never meet my burden of proof but many already do so I want to see more. So I guess its more of a matter of where the line is drawn.
I will concede that I am not the norm therefor most probably demanding more than a reasonable amount of proof but that is for me to decide and my responsibility to live with, and if people cant accept that then I don't really care anyway its just a forum and evolution theory will be changing long after we are both dead anyway.

 

[runic knight]

snip

I guess I just place a higher burden of proof on things then most others.

Saying that other theories have holes in them so its normal for every theory to have holes in them is fine, saying that I cant demand more evidence or even post question to a theory because of other theories having holes makes no sense.
If there is no point in questioning the current model what are all the scientist wasting their time for, oh that's right, they know for a fact that we don't know 100% and that is why they are always gathering more data and trying to find more evidence to either prove or disprove new data, which means even the scientist in the field are demanding more evidence to make it 100% and not accepting it as complete.

"Since you mention it though, would you provide some examples? you keep giving these vague complaints yet no legitimate examples of them. What gaps are you talking about in the theory?"

If we knew what we were looking for we wouldn't have to look for it would we?

"It is wrong to keep demanding a stronger evolutionary model before accepting it when you can not define your complaints, nor explain the flaws you keep referring to."

Why is it wrong?

"Again, you demand a special exception for evolution to be a perfect theory yet repeatedly ignore the flaws and pit falls of every other theory out there. No theory is perfect, none will reach that standard yet you apply it to evolution alone as though it affronts your ideological base. This is the problem I see."

I apply it to evolution alone? I would like a quote. Also gravity has been working the same the whole time Ive been siting here so I can accept that, I never said that I believed all current gravity theory.

Here is the thing, I am an existential realist so proving a theory and having me believe it are a completely different. When it comes to scientific theory im a glass is half empty person and the further into an issue I get the further down the rabbit hole I go, hell I could argue that I do not exist to myself and might win.

You are asking me for specific issued or problems, and I keep telling you there is a possibility that all things may not me known so im gonna stay on the fence.

I did not even want to have the arguments I am dealing with on here, my original post was meant to be a blanket statement to both sides to not discount possibility when making arguments. I worded it the way I did to be more palatable to everyone because this forum is public and not everyone studies the details of evolution theory, not even I to the extent of some others, I thought creationist would jump on me, not evolutionist. It is possible that some pieces of evolution may never meet my burden of proof but many already do so I want to see more. So I guess its more of a matter of where the line is drawn.
I will concede that I am not the norm therefor most probably demanding more than a reasonable amount of proof but that is for me to decide and my responsibility to live with, and if people cant accept that then I don't really care anyway its just a forum and evolution theory will be changing long after we are both dead anyway.

No, you have expressed a higher standard of proof for evolution alone, this is the problem. If you were saying it about every phenomenon, there would be a consistency to your stance that, though I'd disagree with, I could respect as a difference of perspective. This however is making a special exception, an inconsistency that makes your claims of requiring higher evidence to be questionable at best, and outright hypocritical at worse.
You missed the point of most of my post in mentioning the issues with gravity and atomic theories. There ARE holes in them, and never said they was no point in questioning them, please don't misunderstand. I am merely asking why you treat evolutionary theory different then any others. I am asking why you are inconsistent about it. If you hold those theories as unreliable as well, what about the phenomenons of them? You said you hold gravity true yet offer inconsistent reasons about evolution.

As for knowing what we are looking for, I smell a cop out. In that you are saying that the absence of a problem with the theory doesn't mean there is not a problem, which is true, but then use that as justification for doubting it, which is wrong. More so when you refuse to apply that crap stance to any other phenomenon. There is just as likely a problem (different then the ones already there) with gravity, yet you don't apply it gravity as say "well, guess I'll wait on this one til they are 100%". You agree that gravity works, yet not evolution, when both have been churned through the scientific process, both have been explained, both have been observed and both are facts of existence as well as explanations of the phenomenons that bear their names.

Why this is wrong is because in denying the current model, it inherently presumes it wont be used. After all, if you don't think it is good enough, it would be foolish to use it as a basis. And if it IS good enough, then you admit the damn thing works and in what it explains it is right. That means the process it explains actually is true and the implications about it (including human evolutionary path) as a result.

now this

The problem with comparing what I am saying to gravity is that I have personal empirical evidence that gravity exist

suggests you believe in gravity. Maybe not the full theory, but the process and existence of the force itself. You claim this because you personally have experienced it, which as I said is a stupid way to justify it but whatever. Now, but the way you worded your post, you don't believe evolution. The likely reason being lack of personal justified experience of it. I may have been misunderstanding if you do or do not apply your excessive requirements to all theories, but this shows you are inconsistent about the existence of the phenomenons themselves. Or, do you actually believe evolution does exist? If so, and if your complaint is solely on the explanation of the fact of evolution (you know, the theory itself), then what is wrong with that? If your complaints are about the implications of the theory when applied though, you are barking up the wrong tree. It sounds like your complaint is the implications of the human evolutionary path. Your gripes with it though doesn't affect the theory one bit, let alone the fact of evolution's existence.

If you try to argue you don't exist, you lose by default. not because of the outcome of the argument but because of the worthlessness of it. If you don't exist then the argument was a pointless waste of perceived time. Honestly, I am beginning to see this in this discussion with you. Especially since if you can and are willing to argue about your own nonexistence, then nothing could theoretically meet your burden of proof except whatever you aren't naturally opposed to.

I don't really care what happens long in the future or if this discussion will be seen as worthless in the grand scheme. If you truly don't, feel free to stop replying. Me, I like the topic but I find a lot of issues with how you are saying what you are saying.

 

[evilneko]

I really had to think about whether to bother continuing. I have been nothing but civil toward you and in return you've been nothing but condescending and rude to me and outright dismissive of whatever I present.

But whatever. Fuck it.

Predicting what you will find in the dirt is claiming you can predict what has already happened by having already found other similar samples in the dirt so is it really prediction of evolution or paleontology? If prediction was sound we would know not only 100% evolution existed as the current model indicates but also be able to explain WHY evolution occurred at every step on the macro level which we cant as far as I know.

Do you realize how utterly absurd this entire paragraph is? Firstly, Paleontology is a discipline. It's an area of study, not a theory. Moreover it's a discipline in which evolution is applied as a tool. Asking if a prediction "comes from evolution or paleontology" is like asking someone to write a computer program to add two and two, then questioning whether the answer comes from addition or computer science. The latter half of the paragraph is no better. The evidence is overwhelming. Predictions are made and confirmed all the time, one of the most famous ones being Tiktaalik. The mechanisms are well known, natural selection, random mutation, genetic drift, I'm probably leaving off a few but you get the idea. I hope. If not, you might want to look at this [http://youtu.be/MCayG4IIOEQ], this, [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/] or this. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml]

Yes quite true, then why does the fact that I don't completely agree with 100% of evolution being perfect gives everyone a reason for bringing it up then?

Possibly because you have been using the same [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html] damn (close enough) [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC030.html] arguments [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA321.html] creationists [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html] do. [http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA310.html]


BTW could you actually answer this put to you by runic?

Since you specify human evolution, alright, what about that is wrong? What has not been explained well enough or is contrary to the theory?

 

[Spearmaster]

snip

When I release a ball from my grip it falls to the ground, it does this every time that I have done it unless another known force prevents it, that I believe in. With evolution I have not found a simple way to test it myself nor have I found a simple way to watch it work in front of my eyes, all I can view is the end result of evolution like seeing the product there of, I see the product of natural selection every time someone dies doing something stupid, that I believe in, I see the result of biological evolution when ever I get the flu and its a different flu than the last time and my body produces new antibodies to destroy the virus, I believe that because I am actually evolving when it happens, so saying I don't believe in evolution is wrong. When it comes to the model of human evolution or any macro evolution of a major species I see the ball on the floor but I did not get to see it fall for myself, I get people telling me it fell, studies telling me it fell and that it will fall again and even fossil evidence telling me where it fell from, I can believe it but I wish I could see the ball drop for myself, with gravity I get to actually get to see the ball drop and that is where I draw the difference, unreasonable as it may be.

"I find a lot of issues with how you are saying what you are saying."

Just as long as is how and not what, there is a communication barrier due to that fact that I haven't studied evolution or any other sciences really at a professional level and have most likely misrepresented my own views due to the fact that I was not prepared to go this deep into the subject and the first portion on my post was taken as a factual attack on evolution and not the opinion that it was, I was merely trying to keep it simple.

"Now, but the way you worded your post, you don't believe evolution."

so when I said "Evolution exist 100%" I was stating I don't believe evolution? Or are you telling me I have to believe in all evolution or no evolution? Which was the notion I was trying to diffuse with my original post.

"Why this is wrong is because in denying the current model, it inherently presumes it wont be used. After all, if you don't think it is good enough, it would be foolish to use it as a basis. And if it IS good enough, then you admit the damn thing works and in what it explains it is right. That means the process it explains actually is true and the implications about it (including human evolutionary path) as a result."

Honestly I don't even know what you are saying here. It sounds like you are telling me I have to accept it as is before asking for it to be stronger so I can accept it. Am I not allowed to be undecided till I make a decision?

So I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get from me, you ask questions, answer them for me and tell me they are incorrect. Or ask a chain or questions from which you derive a conclusion of your own. If you asked a question to which you really wanted me to give an answer you wouldn't be presuming the answer before it is given. Unless your question is How I can have a differing view than you and others on the issue to which the answer is that I am an individual and I am prone to being different.
I think this is where we are at an impasse. Making long statements at each other accomplishes about as much as a political debate. Also I'm starting my vacation so I wont be responding but will read what you post. I hope we did not waste each others time, I know I have gained some new insights.

 

[Spearmaster]

I really had to think about whether to bother continuing. I have been nothing but civil toward you and in return you've been nothing but condescending and rude to me and outright dismissive of whatever I present.

Try to know exactly what your arguing about before you start arguing

I'm gonna have to say the same to you, seeing as your post contains several inaccuracies. I refer you as well to my earlier post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.380319.14951042].

I made a general statement on this forum that was not directed to you or any other person and you decided to respond to it by quoting a small section of the post, taking it out of context and using it to make a snarky and condescending comment to me and linked a previous post of you own to try and be even more condescending and dismissive to me. So I figured I would respond in kind.

Now after being absent from the discussion for almost 3 days you decide to respond to me using quotes, responses and questions from other people's posts and you want me to answer other people questions and direct those answers to you in a narcissistic attempt to hijack the thread. Not only would it be rude to the original person that asked the question if I directed a response to you but it would be pointless because you can read my response to them.

"Possibly because you have been using the same damn (close enough) arguments creationists do."

Dismissive?

"Do you realize how utterly absurd this entire paragraph is?"

Condescending?

"But whatever. Fuck it."

Yes indeed.

Go ahead and respond, I wont respond back but I might read it, I'm going on vacation

 

[runic knight]

snip

When I release a ball from my grip it falls to the ground, it does this every time that I have done it unless another known force prevents it, that I believe in.

So.... personal experience, i.e. what you can see with your own eyes. I could point out the flaws with that sort of mentality but whatever, lets move one

With evolution I have not found a simple way to test it myself nor have I found a simple way to watch it work in front of my eyes, all I can view is the end result of evolution like seeing the product there of, I see the product of natural selection every time someone dies doing something stupid, that I believe in, I see the result of biological evolution when ever I get the flu and its a different flu than the last time and my body produces new antibodies to destroy the virus, I believe that because I am actually evolving when it happens, so saying I don't believe in evolution is wrong. When it comes to the model of human evolution or any macro evolution of a major species I see the ball on the floor but I did not get to see it fall for myself, I get people telling me it fell, studies telling me it fell and that it will fall again and even fossil evidence telling me where it fell from, I can believe it but I wish I could see the ball drop for myself, with gravity I get to actually get to see the ball drop and that is where I draw the difference, unreasonable as it may be.

In the same manner you are watching the end result of the ball affected by gravity. So, what is the problem? If you'd like a visible example, there are MANY time lapsed examples out there, there are programs out there that replicate evolution based solely on the theory itself, there is animal breeding itself even , or anything dealing with bacteria. Thus, as you agree, evolution works. Now, define why it has to stop. Seriously, that is the entire argument here, in spite of your wording. Why does evolution need to stop at a certain point? There is no damn micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution itself. You are arguing there is no feet, only inches when I am trying to say that it is all measurements. People went over this point before, addressing you directly. If you want new species, we have observation of that. If you want new species of humans, I am sorry, but the time that would take is beyond your lifespan and holding out for that is, quite frankly, stupid. Going back to my previous analogy of a crime, this is exactly you saying "I want more evidence" in spite of an airtight case beyond all reasonable doubt. And that is the problem it seems, you want proof positive when everyone else only want beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, science only goes beyond doubt, so you are applying an impossible standard that, as I said before, is just a justification for your own bias against evolution rather then a logical argument. This is why you only apply this bull to evolution instead of universally I would wager. We both agree the phenomenon exists. We both agree with the theory in how it exists. You just can't accept that in agreeing that it exists and follows certain rules, it can keep going forward indefinitely and that implies a previous history of evolution as well, for humans as well as every other living thing.

Your argument is wrong because we can use indirect logic in proofs. We can look at the data and draw a conclusion about how things happened. If I might point out, by seeing the ball fall, you are doing that. Your sight is a delayed reaction. It is based on the reflected light off of the surface of the ball reaching your eye and being interpreted. Your mind reconstructs that into images of sight. Your body naturally explains the changes of the environment to the brain by a process that is indirect, a reinterpretation of the data of reflected light against eyes in the brain. If you can trust that logic in order to trust your eyes, why can you not trust that logic in evolutionary history? Do you think evolution merely started from when you could observe it and marched forward? I would hope not. If the rules described in the theory work at all, then they need to be applied universally. That includes explaining how they attributed to life currently existing. Evolution explains this beautifully, and it is something you will never be able to see, since it is a past event. I might be willing to give you specifics about the fossil record not being right, but attempting to break the theory because you can not see the events of the past for yourself is just wrong.

Also, when you get the flu, you don't evolve. That isn't evolution at all, that is just biological defense of the body. The defenses are a result of evolution, yes, but the act of getting over and building immunities to disease is not evolution at all. Evolution is based on genetic mutations through generations of organisms, not the what affects one organism during the course of it's life. This suggests you don't actually know what the word means or implies, which kinda renders any complaints about it a bit moot.

Just as long as is how and not what, there is a communication barrier due to that fact that I haven't studied evolution or any other sciences really at a professional level and have most likely misrepresented my own views due to the fact that I was not prepared to go this deep into the subject and the first portion on my post was taken as a factual attack on evolution and not the opinion that it was, I was merely trying to keep it simple.

to let you in on a secret, I am not studied in evolution beyond high school science and a study of it online. The reason your post is taken as a factual attack though is because you are involving facts and for the longest time came off as denying them or just being weird in your justification of them not being right in spite of being facts.

so when I said "Evolution exist 100%" I was stating I don't believe evolution? Or are you telling me I have to believe in all evolution or no evolution? Which was the notion I was trying to diffuse with my original post.

actually, the beauty of the theory is that yes, you DO have to accept evolution or reject it. It is an explanation of a natural phenomenon, if you accept it, as you seem to be saying you do now, you can't suddenly stop applying what that means when it starts to make you squeemish. If you accept that diversity of life is the result of countless generations of adaption, survival and various selections, then you have to apply what that means to humans as well as animals. That mean that we are creatures who are descendant of other creatures who adapted, and going back to the first organisms alive. You can't be selective about how far you want to apply things or make some point where "well, it is true but not beyond this point" unless you have a reason to. And you don't give one, at all, at any time. This is why if you accept evolution, you have to accept we came from primates who came from monkeys. If you reject that yet still try to claim evolution works, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Keep in mind there is a difference if you are arguing about aspects of the fossil record being incomplete or what not, as that is not the theory nor the phenomenon. There can be as many holes in that as there are stars in the sky and it wouldn't break the theory itself. It might not be as strong as it is with the countless fossil, but the lack of each and every previous generation's skeleton doesn't dismiss it either.

Honestly I don't even know what you are saying here. It sounds like you are telling me I have to accept it as is before asking for it to be stronger so I can accept it. Am I not allowed to be undecided till I make a decision?

no, I am saying that if you accept it functions, you have to accept that it has some accuracy to it. It doesn't mean it is perfect or unquestionable, merely that it works and in how it works it is correct. If you do not accept it, then you don't use it. But because it DOES work, this means that there is validity in the theory. Under the conditions we have run across now, it works as advertised. This wont change regardless of any future date, as we can't change how reality works, and a theory like this is merely trying to interpret how reality works. If reality works as the theory predicts, that means it is right in it's predictive capability.

So I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get from me, you ask questions, answer them for me and tell me they are incorrect. Or ask a chain or questions from which you derive a conclusion of your own. If you asked a question to which you really wanted me to give an answer you wouldn't be presuming the answer before it is given. Unless your question is How I can have a differing view than you and others on the issue to which the answer is that I am an individual and I am prone to being different.
I think this is where we at an impasse. Making long statements at each other accomplishes about as much as a political debate. Also I'm starting my vacation so I wont be responding but will read what you post. I hope we did not waste each others time, I know I have gained some new insights.

I am asking questions because there are possible choices because your opinion on things seem to change or were never clear enough. I then explain what each possibility would mean in context to the rest of your argument. If you don't believe in evolution, this is why your current argument is wrong. If you are now saying you do believe in it, then this is why you are being inconsistent in another claim made. It is showing the jumbled mess for being a jumbled mess and how it is based on which starting point you want to use.

--------------

Lets try to simplify.

Do you believe the phenomenon evolution exist? y/n
if no, you are wrong as it is observable fact.

You do, ok, do you believe the theory explains the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, mutation, adaption, etc)? y/n
In no, you are wrong because the lack of contradictory data as well as the functionality of the model validates it as agreeing with reality. If it works without fail, then the explanation is still right in predictive capability. If there is no alternative, it is functional and there is predictive capability that has been tested and proven, then we a correct answer. Maybe not the full answer, but one that is correct in what it sets out to explain (this being, why things evolve, what causes it).

Ok, so you do agree it happens and the theory explains the mechanisms. Now apply the implications of this. these include:

1. Evolution is still occurring because living things are still reproducing/mutating/being killed off by selections.
2. Evolution explains the diversity of life
3. Things in the past had to evolve into the things of the present.

Now, take that last one and apply it to humans: People evolved, and evidence shows we ARE primates, monkeys, vertebrates mammals, etc. Thus, when looked at with everything else out there, the fossils, the genetic similarities, physical traits.... people evolved from apes.

Where in that is the problem?