Best Evidence for Evolution.

[bob b]

So you are admiting that creationism has no scientific model?Evo

It has no mathematical model, but then again neither does evolution.

 

[Hank]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its errors.

Galileo had only an analogy: the moons of Jupiter.

His opponents had real mathematical models which were able to predict the motions of the planets with great accuracy, something that Galileo's simple model was not able to do. Thus his science opponents with their more sophisticated mathematics had the stronger scientific position.

(Galileo rejected other schemes. His model assumed circular orbits, since the "perfection" of a circle was more in keeping with a perfect God).

Besides, Aristotle's science enjoyed the same prestigious position in that era that Einstein's science does today. Who are you little man to question the genius of Einstein and Aristotle?

It wasn’t Galileo’s model it was Copernicus’s model of the earth rotating about the sun that was being used as a new theory. Based on the available evidence since the dawn of man, the sun rotated around the earth. That also agreed with Biblical interpretations of the Bible by the religious leaders based on several verses of scripture. However the invention of the telescope by Galileo provided more evidence for the Copernicus model because of the discovery of the phases of Venus and other important evidence. The fact that everything didn’t fall into the sun with that model was a problem at the time. It wasn’t until Newton came up with his Theory of Universal Gravitation that some scientific explanation was proposed for that problem. Soon after that, most scientist began to use Universal Gravitation since it explained much of the natural world. As more and more evidence accumulated for a heliocentric system, the Church had to abandon their support of the geocentric system and admit their interpretation of the Bible was wrong or risk falling into ridicule and irrelevance.

This is how it works today. As more and more evidence is accumulated to support newer scientific theories, the older ones are abandoned and the ones that best support the evidence replace them. But since you don’t accept the evidence for the newer theories Bob, I’m wondering why you have abandoned the idea of the geocentric system?

 

[aikido7]

It has no mathematical model, but then again neither does evolution.

I could be wrong but I thought Fr. Gregor Mendel devised a mathematical model of certain ratios in evolution and studies of biological heredity.

 

[Yorzhik]

That seems like a rather crazy misunderstanding of what orthodox Christians like the Pope think about it. We merely accept that it is consistent with God's creation. "Bondage to evolution?" You sound a little kinky, fellah.

It doesn't matter what they think about it. When evolution is part of the ash-heap of history, the world will look for someone to blame for such a ridiculous notion and how it could have fooled so many smart people for so long. Armed with statements like those from the Pope, they will blame Christians.

You wish.
The desire to paint yourself as a martyr of science is heady, isn't it? One of the enlightened few, mocked by those who don't have the wit to break free from their bondage to the errors of conformity! Alas! Galileo had the proofs, YEC has yet to do anything but try to poke holes in evolution, assuming that if the modern theories of biology, geology, astronomy, and physics were to topple their creation story would be the only logical replacement. Not so much a battle of scientific theories as an assasination attempt. Comparing the ToE to a theologically conceived heliocentric universe invites ridicule.

First, science will hardly notice the switch from evolution to ID when it happens. Evolution is not the basis for any science being done today anyway (for the most part).

But you misunderstand. We'd be put on the pyre for the wrong reason! We are going to be blamed FOR evolution, not poking holes in it!

Can it also be said that YECs are trying to hold the world in bondage to young earth creationism?

It would be more accurate, at least. But that will be forgotten by the time evolution needs a scape goat.

 

[Yorzhik]

I could be wrong but I thought Fr. Gregor Mendel devised a mathematical model of certain ratios in evolution and studies of biological heredity.

Was Mendel an evolutionary biologist?

 

[Yorzhik]

Hank, the story of Galileo is very interesting and you need to read it in greater depth.

 

[Jukia]

Evolution is not the basis for any science being done today anyway (for the most part).

.

Read a lot of the current literature do you?

 

[Hank]

Hank, the story of Galileo is very interesting and you need to read it in greater depth.

I have read it in greater depth, including the actual documents of the Church. Do you have some point?

 

[bob b]

I could be wrong but I thought Fr. Gregor Mendel devised a mathematical model of certain ratios in evolution and studies of biological heredity.

Mendel's work with pea plants caused a crisis in evolutionary theory because it seemed to show that recombination led to variational limits, something that was not consistent with the unlimited variation ideas of Darwin. This crisis was "solved" by the introduction of the neoDarwinism idea (random mutation plus natural selection) which assumed that random mutations to DNA could extend the limits of sexual recombination that Mendel had previously established (for pea plants).

 

[Jukia]

Mendel's work with pea plants caused a crisis in evolutionary theory because it seemed to show that recombination led to variational limits, something that was not consistent with the unlimited variation ideas of Darwin. This crisis was "solved" by the introduction of the neoDarwinism idea (random mutation plus natural selection) which assumed that random mutations to DNA could extend the limits of sexual recombination that Mendel had previously established (for pea plants).

A "crisis". Hmmm, I suspect not really a crisis. I think it raised some issues, the major one being that at the time we had no real idea about what was going on inside the nucleus. Since then we have learned a bit more.

One however might be able to use the term "crisis" to suggest the impact on Genesis literalism that knowledge of radioactive half-life caused. A "crisis" that has yet to be resolved except in the fanciful offerings of bob b.

 

[aikido7]

Was Mendel an evolutionary biologist?

I think he was one of the first that pointed the discipline toward interitance and evolution in the plant world. You could probably "Google" him if you were curious. I remember hearing about him in school. Of course it was not a Christian school they probably don't teach him there.

 

[bob b]

I think he was one of the first that pointed the discipline toward interitance and evolution in the plant world. You could probably "Google" him if you were curious. I remember hearing about him in school. Of course it was not a Christian school they probably don't teach him there.

Mendel's work was the exact opposite of "evolution" because it showed that sexual recombination was limited to expressing traits already present in the genome.

This caused a crisis among evolutionists who needed a process that would not be limited. They went back to the drawing board and eventually came baclk with neoDarwinism, the New Synthesis, which proposed that the ultimate underlying process of evolution from a hypothetical primitive protocell was due to random mutations in the DNA acted upon by Natural Selection over millions of years.

That is still the mainline concept despite the abundant experimental evidence that indicates that rapid adaptation is caused by nonrandom mutations, leading to the obvious conclusion that there must be some sort of mechanisms that are causing the changes.

But advocates of "evolution" will continue to try to obfuscate the clear truth so that people are lured into believing that any evidence of change is evidence for their theory.

Keep this firmly in mind when reading their propaganda.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its errors.

And those who misapply it are in for worse.

Galileo had only an analogy: the moons of Jupiter.

Jupiter's moons showed plainly that they revolved around Jupiter- proving that everything did not revolve around the Earth. Enough proof to infuriate the church.

His opponents had real mathematical models which were able to predict the motions of the planets with great accuracy, something that Galileo's simple model was not able to do. Thus his science opponents with their more sophisticated mathematics had the stronger scientific position.

Their maths, however, were based around the dogma of a geocentric universe.

(Galileo rejected other schemes. His model assumed circular orbits, since the "perfection" of a circle was more in keeping with a perfect God).

Besides, Aristotle's science enjoyed the same prestigious position in that era that Einstein's science does today. Who are you little man to question the genius of Einstein and Aristotle?

I am someone with a mind, little old man. Don't try to argue from authority with me. I think for myself. Try it- it's invigorating.
So which is it? Before you made Galileo out to be a pioneer of truth in whose footsteps you "humbly" follow in being spurned for carrying the torch of knowledge in a dark age. Now he's some kind of hack who barely proved his case and was wrong about a lot of things? You're waving around the unloaded gun of YEC as though it were a threat, but it has yet to prove useful for ANYTHING!

 

[bob b]

I am someone with a mind, little old man.

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

If you can think for yourself, how is it the contradictions of evolutionary theory are invisible to you?

Don't try to argue from authority with me. I think for myself. Try it- it's invigorating.

I have. Which is why I rejected "random mutations plus natural selection" some 23 years ago.

And I think you are kidding yourself that you are not influenced by "the argument from authority". This may be what is preventing you from seeing the holes in evolutionary theory that are "big enough to drive a truck through".

So which is it? Before you made Galileo out to be a pioneer of truth in whose footsteps you "humbly" follow in being spurned for carrying the torch of knowledge in a dark age. Now he's some kind of hack who barely proved his case and was wrong about a lot of things?

Reality and especially the evaluation of a human being is a mixed bag.

 

[SUTG]

If you can think for yourself, how is it the contradictions of evolutionary theory are invisible to you?

Probably for the same reasons they're invisible to those who are most educated in biology. You know, all those people with their Ph.Ds, sitting in labs and out in the field doing full time studies and experiments and reviewing and criticising each other's papers. Professional biologists and scientists.

You're one of the greatest pioneers in the field, bob, finding all of these contradictions that they've missed. And all without a formal education in Biology.

 

[Paine]

Probably for the same reasons they're invisible to those who are most educated in biology. You know, all those people with their Ph.Ds, sitting in labs and out in the field doing full time studies and experiments and reviewing and criticising each other's papers. Professional biologists and scientists.

You're one of the greatest pioneers in the field, bob, finding all of these contradictions that they've missed. And all without a formal education in Biology.

You seem to have forgotten that bob has little (if any) interest in whatever the authorities in any respective field may say, supposing their input is incompatible with his interpretation of an ancient religious document.

 

[bob b]

You seem to have forgotten that bob has little (if any) interest in whatever the authorities in any respective field may say, supposing their input is incompatible with his interpretation of an ancient religious document.

On the contrary, I am quite interested in what they have to say. That is why I have amassed over the last 23 years a massive number of books and articles written by evolutionists.

I am fascinated by how they have deluded themselves with simple slogans like "methodolgical naturalism" and tautological definitions like Natural Selection and "evolution is any genetic change".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (like me) to notice such nonsense once the blinders are off, and once a person has sufficient confidence in one's own mind and its reasoning power to dare to dissent.

 

[SUTG]

I am fascinated by how they have deluded themselves with simple slogans like "methodolgical naturalism" and tautological definitions like Natural Selection and "evolution is any genetic change".

Can you provide an example of a Biology book that presents evolution as "any genetic change"?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste".

If you can think for yourself, how is it the contradictions of evolutionary theory are invisible to you?

Because I have yet to see any. I have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion that the majority of people involved in the sciences come to- that the universe is billions of years old and that life has changed over billions of years to the present diversity.

I have. Which is why I rejected "random mutations plus natural selection" some 23 years ago.

You reject a lot more than that. You reject all of modern geology and astrophysics as well. You can't pick and choose in science like it's an a al carte menu.

And I think you are kidding yourself that you are not influenced by "the argument from authority". This may be what is preventing you from seeing the holes in evolutionary theory that are "big enough to drive a truck through".

If you knew me at all, you'd know that accepting ANYTHING from authority is not in my nature.

Reality and especially the evaluation of a human being is a mixed bag.

Quite. I'm afraid the comparison between Galileo's heliocentric universe and ID is simply not a valid one, though. When the revolution fails to happen, perhaps you'll see that.

 

[bob b]

Because I have yet to see any. I have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion that the majority of people involved in the sciences come to- that the universe is billions of years old and that life has changed over billions of years to the present diversity.
You reject a lot more than that. You reject all of modern geology and astrophysics as well. You can't pick and choose in science like it's an a al carte menu.

Astrophysics theory is currently "in meltdown". Even insiders are saying so.

I accept modern geology, but not historical geology which is highly speculative and subject to change (i.e. age of Grand Canyon).

If you knew me at all, you'd know that accepting ANYTHING from authority is not in my nature.

Your opening paragraph contradicts that: "the majority of people involved in the sciences come to- that the universe is billions of years old and that life has changed over billions of years to the present diversity."

Isn't that a form of the "argument from authority"?

Quite. I'm afraid the comparison between Galileo's heliocentric universe and ID is simply not a valid one, though. When the revolution fails to happen, perhaps you'll see that.

Perhaps when many others begin to see it you will change your mind.