quote:

ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace

Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?

Thanks,

AiP

quote:

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace

Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?

Thanks,

AiP

quote:

ORIGINAL: .prophetica.

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?

quote:

Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory.

quote:

Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started.

quote:

How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?

quote:

Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact.

quote:

I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation.

quote:

For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila;

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:atheistinpeace

quote:

I'll simply say that I suggest you look at Talk Origins - I'm hesitant to link to it, as I'm not sure if it would constitute a ToS violation.

That would not be a TOS violation. However linking to a site that promotes KJV only is a TOS violation.

quote:

For the study in the lab, have a look at the study on Drosophila;

It is interesting that you think Drosophila supports evolution. Fruit fly experiments have been going on for over 100 years. That means that there have been enough generations to simulate millions of years of human evolution yet NOTHING non-fruit fly has ever been produced.
Rather than supporting goo-to-you evolution the Drosophila shouts volumes against it. BTW, there is nothing religious about that conclusion.

quote:

They have speciated. Millions of years of generations of fruit flies have not been done continuously in one experiment AFAIK. You cant just add up all the generations of fruit flies that have been done in separate experiments and claim they should all evolve together.

What coincides with a change in species to you? Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

They have speciated. Millions of years of generations of fruit flies have not been done continuously in one experiment AFAIK. You cant just add up all the generations of fruit flies that have been done in separate experiments and claim they should all evolve together.

What coincides with a change in species to you? Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?

Interestingly, both with fruit flies and certainly with various microbes, we are able to produce generations equal to all the generations of mammals that ever existed on earth in very short order; and do so under a variety of highly selective environments. And what we see there is very slight change, often by mechanisms that aren't particularly Darwinian; as opposed to the significant morphological changes we claim occured in life's history.

quote:

I would also note that bacteria tend to be very promiscuous with their genetic material, so a lot of rules that apply to other organisms don't apply to them, and vice versa. (I know we're not talking about bacteria, I just wanted to look smart.)

quote:

Did the fruit flies just not look different enough to you?

quote:

quote:

(I know we're not talking about bacteria, I just wanted to look smart.)

Well you are right, although that even lessens further the evolutionary argument;

quote:

Are you trying to claim that DanJames is smart? If so, I tend to agree.

quote:

Interestingly, both with fruit flies and certainly with various microbes, we are able to produce generations equal to all the generations of mammals that ever existed on earth in very short order; and do so under a variety of highly selective environments. And what we see there is very slight change, often by mechanisms that aren't particularly Darwinian; as opposed to the significant morphological changes we claim occured in life's history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Try reading some of Jhud’s posts. His opposition to evolution is based in his knowledge of biology.

quote:

I addressed this point in my last reply to you here, and linked you to an article debunking it in more detail. After I did this, you stopped posting in the science section of Christianity.com for several days, although you continued posting in other sections of the forum. Now you’re back posting in this section again, although you still haven’t answered what I said in my post, and you’re repeating the same argument that I already refuted, without attempting to address anything I said in my refutation. Are you deliberately ignoring what I said?

quote:

I know you don’t think my last post in that thread was “off-topic”, because I made sure you didn’t think this earlier in the same thread, and your own posts there about the same topic go into just as much detail as mine do. So why are you refusing to address what I said there, and are repeating this same argument without even acknowledging what I said in response to it?

quote:

It is interesting that you point this out, because my brief discourse with Jhud in the Enumeration of what atheists must accept on faith thread demonstrated a theistic, if not religious bias on his part. Then again, our discussion wasn’t about evolution specifically, so maybe I shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Still, when someone demonstrates a theistic bias in one topic, I can’t help but conclude that their bias extends into other topics as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

quote:

Could you please supply some links for the studies on speciation?

I see this alot. Look, I know the onus is on the one who is making a claim and so therefore, technically, the evolutionists needs to back up his or her assertion. However its comical how everytime the discussion of evolutionary theory's validity comes up the skeptic (anti-evolutionists) demands proof. Your ignorance is not our fault or responsibility. There are mountains of tests, articles, explanations of various aspects of evolution out there over the last 150 years that should keep you busy. At the very least it would help your cause in knowing why evolutionists support the theory; at the best it might not make you look so silly...Read a book on evolution. You might find it compelling...

The only person so far who I've seen engage the actual theory is Jhud. And kudos to him for. It has sometimes ever made me pause to think twice...

quote:

Well, I stated my position, you stated yours, and as little of what you said particularly contradicted what I said, I considered the matter done; unfortunately there is no impartial judge that is going to tell us when someone has 'won'. Indeed, I'm not really attempting to do that because I have had to many endless discussions with evolutionists to think that is possible - you aren't going to change your position, and you have said nothing that meets the criteria for me to change mine - so it has to end at some point, whatever your imagined 'refutations'.

And I am not the only person posting here; Betta gave a pretty substantive response, I don't have to repeat everything.

quote:

As I’ve pointed out before, I no longer reply to Betta’s posts, and usually don’t even read them. He’s demonstrated, pretty unequivocally in my opinion, that he’s more interested in taking up people’s time than he is in having an actual debate. So if he’s made a particular point that you think is worthwhile, you’ll need to point it out to me yourself if you want it to be part of our discussion.

quote:

In any case, the main thing I wanted to hear your response about was what’s pointed out in the Sciencemag article I linked to. Here it is again: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1427 . This article is a fairly detailed analysis of Behe’s claims about evolution, some of which we’ve discussed in the “Evolution is Inevitable” thread and some of which we haven’t, and the author cites numerous examples of experimental data that goes against Behe’s predictions. You haven’t said anything about the data cited in this article, and as far as I can tell you haven’t even looked at it. If none of this qualifies as a refutation of Behe’s claims in your opinion, can you explain why not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
That being said, I am in luck here because Michael Behe, the author of the book and a person much more qualified in this respect has already responded to Carrol’s criticisms here, here, and here. Have a good read.

quote:


That’s rich, considering that Science cut out the final paragraph of my letter (Science allowed me about 200 words; they allowed Carroll about 500 words in response), which said:
...

quote:

First off, I have to say that I really don’t particularly enjoy discussions that are really just link exchanges of other people’s opinions. I mean it seems apparent you haven’t read the book so you are relying on someone else’s opinion of it; and so I am required to respond to Sean Carrol (whose article I had read previously), via you, about a book you aren’t personally familiar with. It makes for pretty convoluted discussions.

That being said, I am in luck here because Michael Behe, the author of the book and a person much more qualified in this respect has already responded to Carrol’s criticisms here, here, and here. Have a good read.

quote:

As I’ve already mentioned, my specialty when it comes to evolution is not genetics—it’s paleontology. So when we’re debating genetics, I’m going to have to rely pretty heavily on other people’s arguments, whether I’m just linking to them or summarizing them in my own words. You’ve made it pretty clear that your rejection of evolution is based mostly on genetics, though, and that any evidence from fossils won’t be enough to convince you of it. This means that whenever I debate with you, my only chance at getting anywhere depends on my ability to explain that topic.

If you don’t want to have a discussion with me that relies on other people’s arguments, though, what do you think of my suggestion that you post at Christian Forums? There are people there who specialize in genetics, so you wouldn’t be stuck debating it with people like me for whom it’s completely outside our area of specialty. You’re probably more knowledgeable in general than almost any of the opponents of evolution who currently post there.

quote: